# Who was the worst traitor in U.S. history?



## Thunderbird

Many possibilities: Aldrich Ames, the Rosenbergs, or Benedict Arnold himself.  My nominee is Harry Dexter White.

quote: 1. White was the real author of the Morgenthau plan to "turn Germany into a potato field," which when leaked, united non-Nazis with Nazis, stiffened resistance, and prolonged the war. 
2. White used his position in the Treasury Department to develop a hostile U.S. policy toward Japan. The reason was to distract Japan from their plans to attack the Soviet Union and draw the U.S. into the war as an ally with the Soviet Union. 
3. White was the author of an extreme ultimatum that Japan could not comply with in the days just prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. 
4. White delayed financial support mandated by law to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist Chinese government causing the triumph of Mao Tse-Tung's Communist Chinese government. 
5. White was instrumental in handing over the Allied Military mark printing plates to the Soviets. This caused a $250,000,000 deficit in the occupational government budget paid out by the U.S. Treasury. This in effect amounted to the US taxpayer paying the salaries of Soviet occupation troops at a time when US/Soviet relations were deteriorating precisely because of the presence and behavior of Soviet occupation forces in Eastern Europe. 

LINK


----------



## Thunderbird

Harry Dexter White was part of the Silvermaster spy ring.


----------



## martybegan

Jefferson Davis.


----------



## Swagger

The clowns who drafted and enacted the Immigration Act of 1965?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

martybegan said:


> Jefferson Davis.



Even assuming that Davis was a traitor, how is the worst traitor in U.S. history a person that argued against secession while he was a U.S. Senator, and merely went along with his state?


----------



## martybegan

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson Davis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even assuming that Davis was a traitor, how is the worst traitor in U.S. history a person that argued against secession while he was a U.S. Senator, and merely went along with his state?
Click to expand...


He became president of the resulting organization of states that were in rebellion and seeked replace the existing federal compact. That to me is pretty much as treasonous as you can get, against the federal government at least.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

martybegan said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson Davis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even assuming that Davis was a traitor, how is the worst traitor in U.S. history a person that argued against secession while he was a U.S. Senator, and merely went along with his state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He became president of the resulting organization of states that were in rebellion and seeked replace the existing federal compact. That to me is pretty much as treasonous as you can get, against the federal government at least.
Click to expand...


He didn't seek to replace the existing federal compact, he, against his own instincts, merely wanted to opt out of it.


----------



## martybegan

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even assuming that Davis was a traitor, how is the worst traitor in U.S. history a person that argued against secession while he was a U.S. Senator, and merely went along with his state?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He became president of the resulting organization of states that were in rebellion and seeked replace the existing federal compact. That to me is pretty much as treasonous as you can get, against the federal government at least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He didn't seek to replace the existing federal compact, he, against his own instincts, merely wanted to opt out of it.
Click to expand...


What do you call the confederate constitution?  He was still the president of said insurrection, which was put down. No matter what other traitors have done, he's the only one who was presdient of a competing federal style government that occupied the same areas the existing federal level government claimed as thier own.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Swagger said:


> The clowns who drafted and enacted the Immigration Act of 1965?



Not a bad answer.

It was Ted the fucktard Kennedy; who made third-world peasants the only ones able to immigrate to the USA.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

martybegan said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> He became president of the resulting organization of states that were in rebellion and seeked replace the existing federal compact. That to me is pretty much as treasonous as you can get, against the federal government at least.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't seek to replace the existing federal compact, he, against his own instincts, merely wanted to opt out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you call the confederate constitution?  He was still the president of said insurrection, which was put down. No matter what other traitors have done, he's the only one who was presdient of a competing federal style government that occupied the same areas the existing federal level government claimed as thier own.
Click to expand...


The Confederate Constitution didn't replace the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution still existed. Opting out is not the same as replacing.


----------



## martybegan

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't seek to replace the existing federal compact, he, against his own instincts, merely wanted to opt out of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you call the confederate constitution?  He was still the president of said insurrection, which was put down. No matter what other traitors have done, he's the only one who was presdient of a competing federal style government that occupied the same areas the existing federal level government claimed as thier own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Confederate Constitution didn't replace the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution still existed. Opting out is not the same as replacing.
Click to expand...


Semantics. They tried to replace the consitution in thier own states, when the US consitution was still in effect.  Like any contract getting out of the contract required the consent of all parties that entered into it. The North didnt want to end it, the south did, and Civil War ensued. The confederates were your "enemies, domestic."  

Jefferson Davis was a traitor to the US consitution, and to me the greatest of all  becasue he tried led the soveriegn nation that tried to replace it in an area it claimed as its own.


----------



## Sallow

martybegan said:


> Jefferson Davis.



Or Robert E Lee


----------



## martybegan

Sallow said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson Davis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or Robert E Lee
Click to expand...


He would be #2. I put the president of a rebellion over the army field commander.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

martybegan said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you call the confederate constitution?  He was still the president of said insurrection, which was put down. No matter what other traitors have done, he's the only one who was presdient of a competing federal style government that occupied the same areas the existing federal level government claimed as thier own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederate Constitution didn't replace the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution still existed. Opting out is not the same as replacing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Semantics. They tried to replace the consitution in thier own states, when the US consitution was still in effect.  Like any contract getting out of the contract required the consent of all parties that entered into it. The North didnt want to end it, the south did, and Civil War ensued. The confederates were your "enemies, domestic."
> 
> Jefferson Davis was a traitor to the US consitution, and to me the greatest of all  becasue he tried led the soveriegn nation that tried to replace it in an area it claimed as its own.
Click to expand...


Do you need your employer's permission to quit your job? If you join some group do you need the permission of the rest of the group to leave? Perhaps a more applicable question, would the United Kingdom need the permission of the rest of the European Union to leave the EU? Even better yet, did the colonies need the permission of King George to secede from Great Britain?

Maybe the worst traitor in U.S. history is George Washington or Thomas Jefferson.


----------



## martybegan

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederate Constitution didn't replace the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution still existed. Opting out is not the same as replacing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semantics. They tried to replace the consitution in thier own states, when the US consitution was still in effect.  Like any contract getting out of the contract required the consent of all parties that entered into it. The North didnt want to end it, the south did, and Civil War ensued. The confederates were your "enemies, domestic."
> 
> Jefferson Davis was a traitor to the US consitution, and to me the greatest of all  becasue he tried led the soveriegn nation that tried to replace it in an area it claimed as its own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you need your employer's permission to quit your job? If you join some group do you need the permission of the rest of the group to leave? Perhaps a more applicable question, would the United Kingdom need the permission of the rest of the European Union to leave the EU? Even better yet, did the colonies need the permission of King George to secede from Great Britain?
> 
> Maybe the worst traitor in U.S. history is George Washington or Thomas Jefferson.
Click to expand...


George Washington was a traitor to the British Crown, however our side won, so the point became moot. He was still a British traitor, which made him an american patriot. 

Also employer/employee contracts are different, as employment is "At will" in most cases both sides can end the employment as they see fit. This is not the case in contracts such as high end sports contracts, where both parties would have to agree to terminate the contract, unless a clause is broken. 

The idea that a losing side in a democratic vote is able to leave a set union just because they lost negates any concept of representative majority rule government. Of course they can leave if they want to fight for it.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

martybegan said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Semantics. They tried to replace the consitution in thier own states, when the US consitution was still in effect.  Like any contract getting out of the contract required the consent of all parties that entered into it. The North didnt want to end it, the south did, and Civil War ensued. The confederates were your "enemies, domestic."
> 
> Jefferson Davis was a traitor to the US consitution, and to me the greatest of all  becasue he tried led the soveriegn nation that tried to replace it in an area it claimed as its own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you need your employer's permission to quit your job? If you join some group do you need the permission of the rest of the group to leave? Perhaps a more applicable question, would the United Kingdom need the permission of the rest of the European Union to leave the EU? Even better yet, did the colonies need the permission of King George to secede from Great Britain?
> 
> Maybe the worst traitor in U.S. history is George Washington or Thomas Jefferson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> George Washington was a traitor to the British Crown, however our side won, so the point became moot. He was still a British traitor, which made him an american patriot.
> 
> Also employer/employee contracts are different, as employment is "At will" in most cases both sides can end the employment as they see fit. This is not the case in contracts such as high end sports contracts, where both parties would have to agree to terminate the contract, unless a clause is broken.
> 
> *The idea that a losing side in a democratic vote is able to leave a set union just because they lost negates any concept of representative majority rule government.* Of course they can leave if they want to fight for it.
Click to expand...


I would argue that this would be the point. The founders, and this is actually an issue they were almost unanimous on at the time, did not believe in majority rule.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Sallow said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson Davis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or Robert E Lee
Click to expand...


You and marty are poster children for the utter failure of the American educational system.


----------



## martybegan

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you need your employer's permission to quit your job? If you join some group do you need the permission of the rest of the group to leave? Perhaps a more applicable question, would the United Kingdom need the permission of the rest of the European Union to leave the EU? Even better yet, did the colonies need the permission of King George to secede from Great Britain?
> 
> Maybe the worst traitor in U.S. history is George Washington or Thomas Jefferson.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George Washington was a traitor to the British Crown, however our side won, so the point became moot. He was still a British traitor, which made him an american patriot.
> 
> Also employer/employee contracts are different, as employment is "At will" in most cases both sides can end the employment as they see fit. This is not the case in contracts such as high end sports contracts, where both parties would have to agree to terminate the contract, unless a clause is broken.
> 
> *The idea that a losing side in a democratic vote is able to leave a set union just because they lost negates any concept of representative majority rule government.* Of course they can leave if they want to fight for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would argue that this would be the point. The founders, and this is actually an issue they were almost unanimous on at the time, did not believe in majority rule.
Click to expand...


They did believe in limited franchise, but within that franchise the state legislatures went with majority rule, as did the house of representatives they set up. 

The electoral college votes by majority rule, as does the supreme court, and the sentate (in most cases).  

The overall mechanics of a republic is rule by a majority, tempered by a consitution which guarantees certain limits on the pure majorites ability for action.


----------



## martybegan

Uncensored2008 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson Davis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or Robert E Lee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and marty are poster children for the utter failure of the American educational system.
Click to expand...


Can you elaborate please, or is your response based on the self important view that "I disagree with this person, therefore they MUST be stupid?"


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

martybegan said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> George Washington was a traitor to the British Crown, however our side won, so the point became moot. He was still a British traitor, which made him an american patriot.
> 
> Also employer/employee contracts are different, as employment is "At will" in most cases both sides can end the employment as they see fit. This is not the case in contracts such as high end sports contracts, where both parties would have to agree to terminate the contract, unless a clause is broken.
> 
> *The idea that a losing side in a democratic vote is able to leave a set union just because they lost negates any concept of representative majority rule government.* Of course they can leave if they want to fight for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue that this would be the point. The founders, and this is actually an issue they were almost unanimous on at the time, did not believe in majority rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did believe in limited franchise, but within that franchise the state legislatures went with majority rule, as did the house of representatives they set up.
> 
> The electoral college votes by majority rule, as does the supreme court, and the sentate (in most cases).
> 
> The overall mechanics of a republic is rule by a majority, tempered by a consitution which guarantees certain limits on the pure majorites ability for action.
Click to expand...


Well let's go back to the colonies and the King, you said they won the war so the point is moot. But it's not. Either they had the right to secede, or they didn't. Whether the war was won or lost is irrelevant. So did they have the right or didn't they? I mean, Britain was just going by majority rule, right? Why shouldn't the colonies have had to pay for the war that was fought essentially on their behalf?


----------



## martybegan

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue that this would be the point. The founders, and this is actually an issue they were almost unanimous on at the time, did not believe in majority rule.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did believe in limited franchise, but within that franchise the state legislatures went with majority rule, as did the house of representatives they set up.
> 
> The electoral college votes by majority rule, as does the supreme court, and the sentate (in most cases).
> 
> The overall mechanics of a republic is rule by a majority, tempered by a consitution which guarantees certain limits on the pure majorites ability for action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well let's go back to the colonies and the King, you said they won the war so the point is moot. But it's not. Either they had the right to secede, or they didn't. Whether the war was won or lost is irrelevant. So did they have the right or didn't they? I mean, Britain was just going by majority rule, right? Why shouldn't the colonies have had to pay for the war that was fought essentially on their behalf?
Click to expand...


The sucess of the american revolution made it right. If the confederates had succeeded then Davis would still be an American Traitor, by a confederate hero.

By all means people have the right to TRY to seccede, but they need to suceed to make it "right", by the new countries standard in any event. 

Unless explicitly stated in a consitution, secesssion is not allowable unless agreed to by all parties, or by force of arms.


----------



## Uncensored2008

martybegan said:


> Can you elaborate please, or is your response based on the self important view that "I disagree with this person, therefore they MUST be stupid?"



Kevin has already elaborated. 

Why do you think we were named "The United States Of America?" Was it because George Washington established an empire where once colonies had stood? Trading the central authority of the British Crown for the central authority of Washington?  Or was it that 13 autonomous states, each with an independent government, elected from the people therein, formed a voluntary union for common defense and to arbitrate disputes of trade?

Because, IF this were a union, than any member can leave at any time. If it is an empire, then the sovereign will bring force of arms and call the attempt of people to govern themselves "treason" and "sedition."


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

martybegan said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> They did believe in limited franchise, but within that franchise the state legislatures went with majority rule, as did the house of representatives they set up.
> 
> The electoral college votes by majority rule, as does the supreme court, and the sentate (in most cases).
> 
> The overall mechanics of a republic is rule by a majority, tempered by a consitution which guarantees certain limits on the pure majorites ability for action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well let's go back to the colonies and the King, you said they won the war so the point is moot. But it's not. Either they had the right to secede, or they didn't. Whether the war was won or lost is irrelevant. So did they have the right or didn't they? I mean, Britain was just going by majority rule, right? Why shouldn't the colonies have had to pay for the war that was fought essentially on their behalf?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The sucess of the american revolution made it right. If the confederates had succeeded then Davis would still be an American Traitor, by a confederate hero.
> 
> By all means people have the right to TRY to seccede, but they need to suceed to make it "right", by the new countries standard in any event.
> 
> Unless explicitly stated in a consitution, secesssion is not allowable unless agreed to by all parties, or by force of arms.
Click to expand...


That's the idea that "might makes right," but I think we can look at plenty of historical examples where the winning side wasn't "right."

Also, the tenth amendment disagrees with your last assertion.

"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."

Secession is not prohibited by the United States Constitution to the States.


----------



## regent

Elites are usually afraid of the lower classes. For the founders to give power to the masses was dangerous indeed. The logical assumption was the common folk would vote themselves all kinds of largess if allowed to vote. Democracy was a dirty word sort of like communism was in the Fifties. The amazing thing to me, however, is that with our increasing democracy the common folk have not voted themselves the treasury but in fact seem to vote often against their own best economic interests. How that happens is somewhat of a mystery. 
For traitor the first name that came to me was MacArthur, but he did some good things too, and perhaps his reign as king of Japan was probably his greatest deed, a perfect fit.


----------



## Sallow

Uncensored2008 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you elaborate please, or is your response based on the self important view that "I disagree with this person, therefore they MUST be stupid?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin has already elaborated.
> 
> Why do you think we were named "The United States Of America?" Was it because George Washington established an empire where once colonies had stood? Trading the central authority of the British Crown for the central authority of Washington?  Or was it that 13 autonomous states, each with an independent government, elected from the people therein, formed a voluntary union for common defense and to arbitrate disputes of trade?
> 
> Because, IF this were a union, than any member can leave at any time. If it is an empire, then the sovereign will bring force of arms and call the attempt of people to govern themselves "treason" and "sedition."
Click to expand...

Its basically a fairly simple concept. And the constitution makes absolutely no provision for secession. Marty is completely correct in all of his points.


----------



## BecauseIKnow

Jonothan Pollard


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Sallow said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you elaborate please, or is your response based on the self important view that "I disagree with this person, therefore they MUST be stupid?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin has already elaborated.
> 
> Why do you think we were named "The United States Of America?" Was it because George Washington established an empire where once colonies had stood? Trading the central authority of the British Crown for the central authority of Washington?  Or was it that 13 autonomous states, each with an independent government, elected from the people therein, formed a voluntary union for common defense and to arbitrate disputes of trade?
> 
> Because, IF this were a union, than any member can leave at any time. If it is an empire, then the sovereign will bring force of arms and call the attempt of people to govern themselves "treason" and "sedition."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its basically a fairly simple concept. And the constitution makes absolutely no provision for secession. Marty is completely correct in all of his points.
Click to expand...


Why doesn't the 10th Amendment apply to secession?


----------



## Oddball

> *Who was the worst traitor in U.S. history?*


Woodrow Wilson.


----------



## Oddball

martybegan said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> He became president of the resulting organization of states that were in rebellion and seeked replace the existing federal compact. That to me is pretty much as treasonous as you can get, against the federal government at least.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't seek to replace the existing federal compact, he, against his own instincts, merely wanted to opt out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you call the confederate constitution?  He was still the president of said insurrection, which was put down. No matter what other traitors have done, he's the only one who was presdient of a competing federal style government that occupied the same areas the existing federal level government claimed as thier own.
Click to expand...

Leaving is not insurrection or usurpation.

Up to that point, the feds had no claims upon the states...That's why they are states....They had no more claim upon the southern states than they did Canada.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Oddball said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't seek to replace the existing federal compact, he, against his own instincts, merely wanted to opt out of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you call the confederate constitution?  He was still the president of said insurrection, which was put down. No matter what other traitors have done, he's the only one who was presdient of a competing federal style government that occupied the same areas the existing federal level government claimed as thier own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Leaving is not insurrection or usurpation.
> 
> Up to that point, the feds had no claims upon the states...That's why they are states....They had no more claim upon the southern states than they did Canada.
Click to expand...


Apparently the only reason the U.S. government has no claim on Canada is because the U.S. government failed to conquer them.


----------



## Grandma

The Koch brothers.


----------



## martybegan

Uncensored2008 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you elaborate please, or is your response based on the self important view that "I disagree with this person, therefore they MUST be stupid?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin has already elaborated.
> 
> Why do you think we were named "The United States Of America?" Was it because George Washington established an empire where once colonies had stood? Trading the central authority of the British Crown for the central authority of Washington?  Or was it that 13 autonomous states, each with an independent government, elected from the people therein, formed a voluntary union for common defense and to arbitrate disputes of trade?
> 
> Because, IF this were a union, than any member can leave at any time. If it is an empire, then the sovereign will bring force of arms and call the attempt of people to govern themselves "treason" and "sedition."
Click to expand...


So basically once a side loses an election, according to you, they can just leave and set up thier own government? Are you an anarchist?  The only way for the union to be dissolved would have been with the consent of both sides of the argument. In any other case you would have anarchy after every election because the losers would threaten seccession unless they reicieved givebacks.  The federal system would be ungovernable. 

Once states signed the consitution, they were in until let out. The Civil war proved that, despite people's libertarian fantasies and neo-confederate masturbation dreams.


----------



## martybegan

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well let's go back to the colonies and the King, you said they won the war so the point is moot. But it's not. Either they had the right to secede, or they didn't. Whether the war was won or lost is irrelevant. So did they have the right or didn't they? I mean, Britain was just going by majority rule, right? Why shouldn't the colonies have had to pay for the war that was fought essentially on their behalf?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sucess of the american revolution made it right. If the confederates had succeeded then Davis would still be an American Traitor, by a confederate hero.
> 
> By all means people have the right to TRY to seccede, but they need to suceed to make it "right", by the new countries standard in any event.
> 
> Unless explicitly stated in a consitution, secesssion is not allowable unless agreed to by all parties, or by force of arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the idea that "might makes right," but I think we can look at plenty of historical examples where the winning side wasn't "right."
> 
> Also, the tenth amendment disagrees with your last assertion.
> 
> "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."
> 
> Secession is not prohibited by the United States Constitution to the States.
Click to expand...


If the founders wanted a way for states to get out, wouldnt you think they would have included it?

A federal system where secession is allowed in ungovernable, because every time a side lost an election, they could threaten to leave. We would end up with gridlock, or a bunch of feudal groupings of states, with no regulations between them. 

The Civil war ended this argument. Feel free to try to fight it again, and enjoy losing.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

martybegan said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sucess of the american revolution made it right. If the confederates had succeeded then Davis would still be an American Traitor, by a confederate hero.
> 
> By all means people have the right to TRY to seccede, but they need to suceed to make it "right", by the new countries standard in any event.
> 
> Unless explicitly stated in a consitution, secesssion is not allowable unless agreed to by all parties, or by force of arms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the idea that "might makes right," but I think we can look at plenty of historical examples where the winning side wasn't "right."
> 
> Also, the tenth amendment disagrees with your last assertion.
> 
> "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."
> 
> Secession is not prohibited by the United States Constitution to the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the founders wanted a way for states to get out, wouldnt you think they would have included it?
> 
> A federal system where secession is allowed in ungovernable, because every time a side lost an election, they could threaten to leave. We would end up with gridlock, or a bunch of feudal groupings of states, with no regulations between them.
> 
> The Civil war ended this argument. Feel free to try to fight it again, and enjoy losing.
Click to expand...


You say that all the states would have to agree to let another state leave the Union, or at least a majority. Don't you think if that were the case the founders would have included it? Nowhere is that said in the Constitution. For secession, however, we can look to the 10th Amendment, as I've already pointed out.

And yet that's not what happened. We had very few instances of genuine threats to secede up until the first southern states actually seceded. 1814 might be the only real example up to that point. The point was that secession would be just another check on the federal government's power. If the federal government was usurping power that it wasn't supposed to have then of course the states were meant to secede. It's the reason states like Virginia and Rhode Island reserved the right to secede, with no complaints from anybody else, when they ratified the Constitution.

And see, we were having such a good discussion up to this point. Who wants to fight the Civil War over again?


----------



## thanatos144

Barrack Obama.......


----------



## thanatos144

Enough with the hero worship of slave owning traitors!


----------



## martybegan

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the idea that "might makes right," but I think we can look at plenty of historical examples where the winning side wasn't "right."
> 
> Also, the tenth amendment disagrees with your last assertion.
> 
> "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."
> 
> Secession is not prohibited by the United States Constitution to the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the founders wanted a way for states to get out, wouldnt you think they would have included it?
> 
> A federal system where secession is allowed in ungovernable, because every time a side lost an election, they could threaten to leave. We would end up with gridlock, or a bunch of feudal groupings of states, with no regulations between them.
> 
> The Civil war ended this argument. Feel free to try to fight it again, and enjoy losing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say that all the states would have to agree to let another state leave the Union, or at least a majority. Don't you think if that were the case the founders would have included it? Nowhere is that said in the Constitution. For secession, however, we can look to the 10th Amendment, as I've already pointed out.
> 
> And yet that's not what happened. We had very few instances of genuine threats to secede up until the first southern states actually seceded. 1814 might be the only real example up to that point. The point was that secession would be just another check on the federal government's power. If the federal government was usurping power that it wasn't supposed to have then of course the states were meant to secede. It's the reason states like Virginia and Rhode Island reserved the right to secede, with no complaints from anybody else, when they ratified the Constitution.
> 
> And see, we were having such a good discussion up to this point. Who wants to fight the Civil War over again?
Click to expand...


If Virginia and Rhode Island truly wanted the right to seceede they would have put it in the document, and not left it up to the vagarities of the 10th amendment. 

And secession is not a check, it is a knife held at the throat of the very concept of federalism. A system were secession without consent of the whole is allowed is unworkable, again as I said, denegrating into a bunch of micro-nations.


----------



## martybegan

thanatos144 said:


> Enough with the hero worship of slave owning traitors!



But it wasnt about slavery...

/sarcasm.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

martybegan said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the founders wanted a way for states to get out, wouldnt you think they would have included it?
> 
> A federal system where secession is allowed in ungovernable, because every time a side lost an election, they could threaten to leave. We would end up with gridlock, or a bunch of feudal groupings of states, with no regulations between them.
> 
> The Civil war ended this argument. Feel free to try to fight it again, and enjoy losing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that all the states would have to agree to let another state leave the Union, or at least a majority. Don't you think if that were the case the founders would have included it? Nowhere is that said in the Constitution. For secession, however, we can look to the 10th Amendment, as I've already pointed out.
> 
> And yet that's not what happened. We had very few instances of genuine threats to secede up until the first southern states actually seceded. 1814 might be the only real example up to that point. The point was that secession would be just another check on the federal government's power. If the federal government was usurping power that it wasn't supposed to have then of course the states were meant to secede. It's the reason states like Virginia and Rhode Island reserved the right to secede, with no complaints from anybody else, when they ratified the Constitution.
> 
> And see, we were having such a good discussion up to this point. Who wants to fight the Civil War over again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Virginia and Rhode Island truly wanted the right to seceede they would have put it in the document, and not left it up to the vagarities of the 10th amendment.
> 
> And secession is not a check, it is a knife held at the throat of the very concept of federalism. A system were secession without consent of the whole is allowed is unworkable, again as I said, denegrating into a bunch of micro-nations.
Click to expand...


So then where is the idea that any state who wants to secede has to be permitted to do so from the other states? You claim the 10th Amendment is vague, though it seems pretty straight forward to me, but your claim is nonexistent.

Of course secession is a check, and that's how it worked up until South Carolina finally used it. The system, of course, was designed to favor the states over the federal government, because this was a people who wanted to jealously guard their liberty from a powerful centralized government the likes of which they had just broken away from. You say that this idea is a "knife at the throat of federalism," but you're using the wrong term. This idea was the bedrock of federalism, it was merely a knife at the throat of the federal government. Which is exactly what was intended.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Sallow said:


> Its basically a fairly simple concept. And the constitution makes absolutely no provision for secession. Marty is completely correct in all of his points.



Do you have any idea what happened on March 4, 1789? 

Let's start with a definition: Ratification is a principal's approval of an act of its agent where the agent lacked authority to legally bind the principal. The term applies to private contract law, international treaties, and constitutionals in federations such as the United States and Canada.

So on March 4, 1789, the United States Constitution was ratified, the 13 member states joined a trade and mutual defense federation. Notice that the conquering body did not simply impose itself by force, but instead the sovereign states adopted a treaty of mutual defense and trade. The treaty of membership so ratified is by fact a voluntary treaty, no coercion was applied to force the member states into the federation. A voluntary treaty engaged can be revoked. You and Marty, as is the way of the left, have a preference for an Empire, rather than a federal system. Lincoln returned to the model of Britain, where a central authority rules owned territories. Thus ended the grand experiment in freedom that was established by Madison and Jefferson. The 13 states were mere vassals of the central authority.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Why doesn't the 10th Amendment apply to secession?



Why did we go through a ratification process, if we are mere territories, ruled from afar by the central power?


----------



## martybegan

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say that all the states would have to agree to let another state leave the Union, or at least a majority. Don't you think if that were the case the founders would have included it? Nowhere is that said in the Constitution. For secession, however, we can look to the 10th Amendment, as I've already pointed out.
> 
> And yet that's not what happened. We had very few instances of genuine threats to secede up until the first southern states actually seceded. 1814 might be the only real example up to that point. The point was that secession would be just another check on the federal government's power. If the federal government was usurping power that it wasn't supposed to have then of course the states were meant to secede. It's the reason states like Virginia and Rhode Island reserved the right to secede, with no complaints from anybody else, when they ratified the Constitution.
> 
> And see, we were having such a good discussion up to this point. Who wants to fight the Civil War over again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Virginia and Rhode Island truly wanted the right to seceede they would have put it in the document, and not left it up to the vagarities of the 10th amendment.
> 
> And secession is not a check, it is a knife held at the throat of the very concept of federalism. A system were secession without consent of the whole is allowed is unworkable, again as I said, denegrating into a bunch of micro-nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then where is the idea that any state who wants to secede has to be permitted to do so from the other states? You claim the 10th Amendment is vague, though it seems pretty straight forward to me, but your claim is nonexistent.
> 
> Of course secession is a check, and that's how it worked up until South Carolina finally used it. The system, of course, was designed to favor the states over the federal government, because this was a people who wanted to jealously guard their liberty from a powerful centralized government the likes of which they had just broken away from. You say that this idea is a "knife at the throat of federalism," but you're using the wrong term. This idea was the bedrock of federalism, it was merely a knife at the throat of the federal government. Which is exactly what was intended.
Click to expand...


A federal system that allows unilateral seccession is not workable. Nothing would ever get done, as every time the minority of states lost some vote, they would threaten to seceede. Sooner or later it would have to happen, and the result will be either war or a bunch of weak penny ante countries ripe for conquest. 

Also, the only reason the southern states didnt use it earlier is that they were getting thier way.  

Seccession is the equivalent of a 5 year old running away from home when he doesnt get the cake slice he wanted.


----------



## martybegan

Uncensored2008 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its basically a fairly simple concept. And the constitution makes absolutely no provision for secession. Marty is completely correct in all of his points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any idea what happened on March 4, 1789?
> 
> Let's start with a definition: Ratification is a principal's approval of an act of its agent where the agent lacked authority to legally bind the principal. The term applies to private contract law, international treaties, and constitutionals in federations such as the United States and Canada.
> 
> So on March 4, 1789, the United States Constitution was ratified, the 13 member states joined a trade and mutual defense federation. Notice that the conquering body did not simply impose itself by force, but instead the sovereign states adopted a treaty of mutual defense and trade. The treaty of membership so ratified is by fact a voluntary treaty, no coercion was applied to force the member states into the federation. A voluntary treaty engaged can be revoked. You and Marty, as is the way of the left, have a preference for an Empire, rather than a federal system. Lincoln returned to the model of Britain, where a central authority rules owned territories. Thus ended the grand experiment in freedom that was established by Madison and Jefferson. The 13 states were mere vassals of the central authority.
Click to expand...


Please tell me how a federal system, where individual states or groups of states can leave without the consent of the other states, can actually function?  The civil war proves it cannot. 

Do you enjoy thinking of the US being broken up into 5-6 penny ante countries, each bickering over water rights, air rights, and border controls?

Edit:  Im on the left?  are you fucking kidding me? check my post history, my leanings are libertartian, but not "L"ibertarian.


----------



## rightwinger

martybegan said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sucess of the american revolution made it right. If the confederates had succeeded then Davis would still be an American Traitor, by a confederate hero.
> 
> By all means people have the right to TRY to seccede, but they need to suceed to make it "right", by the new countries standard in any event.
> 
> Unless explicitly stated in a consitution, secesssion is not allowable unless agreed to by all parties, or by force of arms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the idea that "might makes right," but I think we can look at plenty of historical examples where the winning side wasn't "right."
> 
> Also, the tenth amendment disagrees with your last assertion.
> 
> "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."
> 
> Secession is not prohibited by the United States Constitution to the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the founders wanted a way for states to get out, wouldnt you think they would have included it?
> 
> A federal system where secession is allowed in ungovernable, because every time a side lost an election, they could threaten to leave. We would end up with gridlock, or a bunch of feudal groupings of states, with no regulations between them.
> 
> The Civil war ended this argument. Feel free to try to fight it again, and enjoy losing.
Click to expand...



Agree

If joining the United States were to be something you could jump in and out as you wish, there needed to be provisions on the process to withdraw and how assets would be divided up. An example is Ft Sumter. Federal land in a state.
There also needed to be provisions on how joint debt would be paid

There obviously were no such provisions


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

martybegan said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Virginia and Rhode Island truly wanted the right to seceede they would have put it in the document, and not left it up to the vagarities of the 10th amendment.
> 
> And secession is not a check, it is a knife held at the throat of the very concept of federalism. A system were secession without consent of the whole is allowed is unworkable, again as I said, denegrating into a bunch of micro-nations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then where is the idea that any state who wants to secede has to be permitted to do so from the other states? You claim the 10th Amendment is vague, though it seems pretty straight forward to me, but your claim is nonexistent.
> 
> Of course secession is a check, and that's how it worked up until South Carolina finally used it. The system, of course, was designed to favor the states over the federal government, because this was a people who wanted to jealously guard their liberty from a powerful centralized government the likes of which they had just broken away from. You say that this idea is a "knife at the throat of federalism," but you're using the wrong term. This idea was the bedrock of federalism, it was merely a knife at the throat of the federal government. Which is exactly what was intended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A federal system that allows unilateral seccession is not workable. Nothing would ever get done, as every time the minority of states lost some vote, they would threaten to seceede. Sooner or later it would have to happen, and the result will be either war or a bunch of weak penny ante countries ripe for conquest.
> 
> Also, the only reason the southern states didnt use it earlier is that they were getting thier way.
> 
> Seccession is the equivalent of a 5 year old running away from home when he doesnt get the cake slice he wanted.
Click to expand...


You're simply repeating the same thing over and over without adding any more substance to it.

You say nothing would ever get done, yet it did with very few calls for secession. In fact, perhaps the only real threat prior to 1860 came from the northern New England states in 1814 at the Hartford Convention.

As for the south getting their way, in what alternate universe did that occur? I seem to recall a series of compromises, but rarely did either side get their way. Isn't that evidence of the system working? If the south had had their way there would've been no restrictions on the spread of slavery into new territories or states, and there would have been no tariffs.

Also your analogy is incorrect. Secession is the equivalent of the parent taking the entire cake away when the child throws a tantrum over not getting the cake slice he wanted.


----------



## Uncensored2008

martybegan said:


> So basically once a side loses an election, according to you, they can just leave and set up thier own government?



According to George Mason, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, et al; we already had our own governments. That was the whole point of liberty, a people who governed themselves. 



> Are you an anarchist?



No, I'm constitutionalists. According to the United States Constitution, there are 50, independent, republican governments who have joined a federation. To you, there is one government with 50 territories to rule.

Prior to the civil war, the question of a state leaving the federal union was not an issue, the issue was *who would be admitted?* 

Admission was tough, leaving was up to the states.



> The only way for the union to be dissolved would have been with the consent of both sides of the argument.



You use the word "union," yet speak of an empire. A union can only be voluntary.



> In any other case you would have anarchy after every election because the losers would threaten seccession unless they reicieved givebacks.  The federal system would be ungovernable.



If you had read the constitution, you would understand that there are no federal elections. You have NEVER cast a "united states ballot," and they don't exist. All elections are held by the sovereign states. When you go cast your ballot for Obama, you will cast it in the state you live in, it has no meaning outside of your state. 

So would California secede if an election in Texas doesn't go their way? That is utterly absurd. Elections are only state-wide, and it is the complete failure of our educational system that results in so many not grasping this.



> Once states signed the consitution, they were in until let out.



Had such a provision been floated, no state would have ratified the document.

[quoteThe Civil war proved that, despite people's libertarian fantasies and neo-confederate masturbation dreams.[/QUOTE]

The civil was was the circumventing of the constitution and the end of constitutional government.


----------



## Uncensored2008

thanatos144 said:


> Enough with the hero worship of slave owning traitors!



This is a serious problem. Too many think that examining the constitutionality of the acts of Lincoln is to "side" with the Antebellum South.

The South was a miserable place, a feudal shit hole that denied opportunity and hope to all but a tiny elite. Slavery was abhorrent, yet the treatment of free whites who were not of the landed gentry was far worse than that which the slave endured.

Hero worship? Far from it. But the fact is that Lincoln was a traitor and violated the constitution, ending the pact that the founding fathers had created.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

martybegan said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its basically a fairly simple concept. And the constitution makes absolutely no provision for secession. Marty is completely correct in all of his points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any idea what happened on March 4, 1789?
> 
> Let's start with a definition: Ratification is a principal's approval of an act of its agent where the agent lacked authority to legally bind the principal. The term applies to private contract law, international treaties, and constitutionals in federations such as the United States and Canada.
> 
> So on March 4, 1789, the United States Constitution was ratified, the 13 member states joined a trade and mutual defense federation. Notice that the conquering body did not simply impose itself by force, but instead the sovereign states adopted a treaty of mutual defense and trade. The treaty of membership so ratified is by fact a voluntary treaty, no coercion was applied to force the member states into the federation. A voluntary treaty engaged can be revoked. You and Marty, as is the way of the left, have a preference for an Empire, rather than a federal system. Lincoln returned to the model of Britain, where a central authority rules owned territories. Thus ended the grand experiment in freedom that was established by Madison and Jefferson. The 13 states were mere vassals of the central authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please tell me how a federal system, where individual states or groups of states can leave without the consent of the other states, can actually function?  The civil war proves it cannot.
> 
> Do you enjoy thinking of the US being broken up into 5-6 penny ante countries, each bickering over water rights, air rights, and border controls?
> 
> Edit:  Im on the left?  are you fucking kidding me? check my post history, my leanings are libertartian, but not "L"ibertarian.
Click to expand...


The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Mississippi States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Mississippi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better. - Thomas Jefferson

The indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the right but in the heart.  If the day should come (may Heaven avert it!) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester into hatred, the bands of political associations will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests or kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint. - John Quincy Adams

Also, the only thing the Civil War proved is that the Union government was better at war than the Confederate government. It doesn't prove that a federal system is unworkable with the threat of secession. If anything it proves the opposite. The state governments remained stable after secession, and a new federal government was established peacefully among the states that had seceded from the old.

You also seem to be confused about the difference between libertarians and Libertarians. "Libertarian," capitalized, refers to a member of the Libertarian Party, whereas libertarian, not capitalized, refers to the political ideology of libertarianism itself. So "libertarian" would be comparable to "conservative" or "liberal," whereas "Libertarian" would be comparable to "Republican" or "Democrat."


----------



## martybegan

Uncensored2008 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> So basically once a side loses an election, according to you, they can just leave and set up thier own government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to George Mason, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, et al; we already had our own governments. That was the whole point of liberty, a people who governed themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you an anarchist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm constitutionalists. According to the United States Constitution, there are 50, independent, republican governments who have joined a federation. To you, there is one government with 50 territories to rule.
> 
> Prior to the civil war, the question of a state leaving the federal union was not an issue, the issue was *who would be admitted?*
> 
> Admission was tough, leaving was up to the states.
> 
> 
> 
> You use the word "union," yet speak of an empire. A union can only be voluntary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In any other case you would have anarchy after every election because the losers would threaten seccession unless they reicieved givebacks.  The federal system would be ungovernable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you had read the constitution, you would understand that there are no federal elections. You have NEVER cast a "united states ballot," and they don't exist. All elections are held by the sovereign states. When you go cast your ballot for Obama, you will cast it in the state you live in, it has no meaning outside of your state.
> 
> So would California secede if an election in Texas doesn't go their way? That is utterly absurd. Elections are only state-wide, and it is the complete failure of our educational system that results in so many not grasping this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once states signed the consitution, they were in until let out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Had such a provision been floated, no state would have ratified the document.
> 
> [quoteThe Civil war proved that, despite people's libertarian fantasies and neo-confederate masturbation dreams.
Click to expand...


The civil was was the circumventing of the constitution and the end of constitutional government.[/quote]

You fail to address the issue of such a system being ungovernable. If that is what you want, then, yes, you are an anarchist. 

and yes, there are federal elections, which are for federal positions. They may be within the state, but they are not responsible to the state government. Senators used to be, but by amendment are no longer.  A governor or a state legislature cannot tell a legislative representative how to vote, nor can he tell a senator.

I know the  constitution has been messed with, with far too much power going to the federal level above the state level. But that does not result in the right to seccession without the consent of the rest of the whole.

Another point to be made is that the northern states themselves could have stopped the Federal government cold by not giving support to Lincoln, nor answering the callup for state regiments. It wasnt the feds only who disagreed with secesssion, it was the other states involved in the compact. 

If the states decide together to break up, then it would be acceptable. For a minority of states to decide to leave is like any other party trying to weasel out of its contract when they decide it is not in thier interests, with no compensation for the other parties.


----------



## martybegan

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any idea what happened on March 4, 1789?
> 
> Let's start with a definition: Ratification is a principal's approval of an act of its agent where the agent lacked authority to legally bind the principal. The term applies to private contract law, international treaties, and constitutionals in federations such as the United States and Canada.
> 
> So on March 4, 1789, the United States Constitution was ratified, the 13 member states joined a trade and mutual defense federation. Notice that the conquering body did not simply impose itself by force, but instead the sovereign states adopted a treaty of mutual defense and trade. The treaty of membership so ratified is by fact a voluntary treaty, no coercion was applied to force the member states into the federation. A voluntary treaty engaged can be revoked. You and Marty, as is the way of the left, have a preference for an Empire, rather than a federal system. Lincoln returned to the model of Britain, where a central authority rules owned territories. Thus ended the grand experiment in freedom that was established by Madison and Jefferson. The 13 states were mere vassals of the central authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell me how a federal system, where individual states or groups of states can leave without the consent of the other states, can actually function?  The civil war proves it cannot.
> 
> Do you enjoy thinking of the US being broken up into 5-6 penny ante countries, each bickering over water rights, air rights, and border controls?
> 
> Edit:  Im on the left?  are you fucking kidding me? check my post history, my leanings are libertartian, but not "L"ibertarian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Mississippi States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Mississippi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better. - Thomas Jefferson
> 
> The indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the right but in the heart.  If the day should come (may Heaven avert it!) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester into hatred, the bands of political associations will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests or kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint. - John Quincy Adams
> 
> Also, the only thing the Civil War proved is that the Union government was better at war than the Confederate government. It doesn't prove that a federal system is unworkable with the threat of secession. If anything it proves the opposite. The state governments remained stable after secession, and a new federal government was established peacefully among the states that had seceded from the old.
> 
> You also seem to be confused about the difference between libertarians and Libertarians. "Libertarian," capitalized, refers to a member of the Libertarian Party, whereas libertarian, not capitalized, refers to the political ideology of libertarianism itself. So "libertarian" would be comparable to "conservative" or "liberal," whereas "Libertarian" would be comparable to "Republican" or "Democrat."
Click to expand...


Or I can just call you an anarchist, because if you go with "If I dont get my way I am going to leave" that is basically what you are advocating.


----------



## martybegan

Uncensored2008 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enough with the hero worship of slave owning traitors!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a serious problem. Too many think that examining the constitutionality of the acts of Lincoln is to "side" with the Antebellum South.
> 
> The South was a miserable place, a feudal shit hole that denied opportunity and hope to all but a tiny elite. Slavery was abhorrent, yet the treatment of free whites who were not of the landed gentry was far worse than that which the slave endured.
> 
> Hero worship? Far from it. But the fact is that Lincoln was a traitor and violated the constitution, ending the pact that the founding fathers had created.
Click to expand...


According to your logic so did all the other northern states that backed him up. 
So basically the consitution is a death pact, where as soon as a minority decides they cant get thier way, they get to leave. No government can work like that. 

That makes you an anarchist.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

martybegan said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell me how a federal system, where individual states or groups of states can leave without the consent of the other states, can actually function?  The civil war proves it cannot.
> 
> Do you enjoy thinking of the US being broken up into 5-6 penny ante countries, each bickering over water rights, air rights, and border controls?
> 
> Edit:  Im on the left?  are you fucking kidding me? check my post history, my leanings are libertartian, but not "L"ibertarian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Mississippi States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Mississippi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better. - Thomas Jefferson
> 
> The indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the right but in the heart.  If the day should come (may Heaven avert it!) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester into hatred, the bands of political associations will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests or kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint. - John Quincy Adams
> 
> Also, the only thing the Civil War proved is that the Union government was better at war than the Confederate government. It doesn't prove that a federal system is unworkable with the threat of secession. If anything it proves the opposite. The state governments remained stable after secession, and a new federal government was established peacefully among the states that had seceded from the old.
> 
> You also seem to be confused about the difference between libertarians and Libertarians. "Libertarian," capitalized, refers to a member of the Libertarian Party, whereas libertarian, not capitalized, refers to the political ideology of libertarianism itself. So "libertarian" would be comparable to "conservative" or "liberal," whereas "Libertarian" would be comparable to "Republican" or "Democrat."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or I can just call you an anarchist, because if you go with "If I dont get my way I am going to leave" that is basically what you are advocating.
Click to expand...


So John Adams and George Washington must also have been anarchists using that logic.


----------



## martybegan

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Mississippi States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Mississippi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better. - Thomas Jefferson
> 
> The indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the right but in the heart.  If the day should come (may Heaven avert it!) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester into hatred, the bands of political associations will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests or kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint. - John Quincy Adams
> 
> Also, the only thing the Civil War proved is that the Union government was better at war than the Confederate government. It doesn't prove that a federal system is unworkable with the threat of secession. If anything it proves the opposite. The state governments remained stable after secession, and a new federal government was established peacefully among the states that had seceded from the old.
> 
> You also seem to be confused about the difference between libertarians and Libertarians. "Libertarian," capitalized, refers to a member of the Libertarian Party, whereas libertarian, not capitalized, refers to the political ideology of libertarianism itself. So "libertarian" would be comparable to "conservative" or "liberal," whereas "Libertarian" would be comparable to "Republican" or "Democrat."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or I can just call you an anarchist, because if you go with "If I dont get my way I am going to leave" that is basically what you are advocating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So John Adams and George Washington must also have been anarchists using that logic.
Click to expand...


I have to assume you mean Jefferson. 

Maybe it twas a good idea in the 1700's and early 1800's to be a collection of small competing micro states, and considering the fight they had against Britian, it probably seemed noble to be able to divide even further.  Just ask Germany how the Holy Roman Empire (a loose confederation of independent states) worked for them, or even the US under the Articles of Confederation. 

Also the Colony/Britian situation is nowhere near the situation we had in the election of 1860. The British gave no representation to the colonies, the federal government DID give representation to the states. The South didnt like the result of 1 election, and decided that what the north went through since the start of the union wasnt for them.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

martybegan said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or I can just call you an anarchist, because if you go with "If I dont get my way I am going to leave" that is basically what you are advocating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So John Adams and George Washington must also have been anarchists using that logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to assume you mean Jefferson.
> 
> Maybe it twas a good idea in the 1700's and early 1800's to be a collection of small competing micro states, and considering the fight they had against Britian, it probably seemed noble to be able to divide even further.  Just ask Germany how the Holy Roman Empire (a loose confederation of independent states) worked for them, or even the US under the Articles of Confederation.
> 
> Also the Colony/Britian situation is nowhere near the situation we had in the election of 1860. The British gave no representation to the colonies, the federal government DID give representation to the states. The South didnt like the result of 1 election, and decided that what the north went through since the start of the union wasnt for them.
Click to expand...


Jefferson as well. But not only those three. Anybody who supported independence from Great Britain was clearly an anarchist, at least using the logic you've supplied.

What about the U.S. under the Articles?

You're now changing the argument. The issue is whether the right to secession exists, not whether a particular instance of secession was justified or not.


----------



## eflatminor

Woodrow Wilson


----------



## martybegan

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So John Adams and George Washington must also have been anarchists using that logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to assume you mean Jefferson.
> 
> Maybe it twas a good idea in the 1700's and early 1800's to be a collection of small competing micro states, and considering the fight they had against Britian, it probably seemed noble to be able to divide even further.  Just ask Germany how the Holy Roman Empire (a loose confederation of independent states) worked for them, or even the US under the Articles of Confederation.
> 
> Also the Colony/Britian situation is nowhere near the situation we had in the election of 1860. The British gave no representation to the colonies, the federal government DID give representation to the states. The South didnt like the result of 1 election, and decided that what the north went through since the start of the union wasnt for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jefferson as well. But not only those three. Anybody who supported independence from Great Britain was clearly an anarchist, at least using the logic you've supplied.
> 
> What about the U.S. under the Articles?
> 
> You're now changing the argument. The issue is whether the right to secession exists, not whether a particular instance of secession was justified or not.
Click to expand...


There is no right to secession, especially in a republican based form of government. You can leave, but you cannot seceede.  To allow secession unless it is with the consent of all parties involved is to make any higher level of government unworkable.

There is always a right to revolution, but for that you have to be willing to fight for it.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

martybegan said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to assume you mean Jefferson.
> 
> Maybe it twas a good idea in the 1700's and early 1800's to be a collection of small competing micro states, and considering the fight they had against Britian, it probably seemed noble to be able to divide even further.  Just ask Germany how the Holy Roman Empire (a loose confederation of independent states) worked for them, or even the US under the Articles of Confederation.
> 
> Also the Colony/Britian situation is nowhere near the situation we had in the election of 1860. The British gave no representation to the colonies, the federal government DID give representation to the states. The South didnt like the result of 1 election, and decided that what the north went through since the start of the union wasnt for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson as well. But not only those three. Anybody who supported independence from Great Britain was clearly an anarchist, at least using the logic you've supplied.
> 
> What about the U.S. under the Articles?
> 
> You're now changing the argument. The issue is whether the right to secession exists, not whether a particular instance of secession was justified or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no right to secession, especially in a republican based form of government. You can leave, but you cannot seceede.  To allow secession unless it is with the consent of all parties involved is to make any higher level of government unworkable.
> 
> There is always a right to revolution, but for that you have to be willing to fight for it.
Click to expand...


So you're going back to the old standby of repeating the same mantra over and over without addressing the points other people have brought up?

Yes, sometimes fighting for your rights is necessary. However, to say that there is a right to revolution is to admit that there's a right to secession, and there's no inherent reason that it must be fought over. Only if the right is not recognized does it have to be fought for. Fighting, in and of itself, offers no legitimacy whatsoever. Either the right exists or it doesn't. Fighting doesn't change that.


----------



## martybegan

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson as well. But not only those three. Anybody who supported independence from Great Britain was clearly an anarchist, at least using the logic you've supplied.
> 
> What about the U.S. under the Articles?
> 
> You're now changing the argument. The issue is whether the right to secession exists, not whether a particular instance of secession was justified or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no right to secession, especially in a republican based form of government. You can leave, but you cannot seceede.  To allow secession unless it is with the consent of all parties involved is to make any higher level of government unworkable.
> 
> There is always a right to revolution, but for that you have to be willing to fight for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're going back to the old standby of repeating the same mantra over and over without addressing the points other people have brought up?
> 
> Yes, sometimes fighting for your rights is necessary. However, to say that there is a right to revolution is to admit that there's a right to secession, and there's no inherent reason that it must be fought over. Only if the right is not recognized does it have to be fought for. Fighting, in and of itself, offers no legitimacy whatsoever. Either the right exists or it doesn't. Fighting doesn't change that.
Click to expand...


Fighting is what happens when two sides cannot agree on something. In statecraft, its called war. A right to seccession makes representative government at the level seccesion is allowed impossible, as each party can then threaten to leave any time it does not get its way. It was this impossibility that led to the Civil War.  At that point the question was if secession can be unilateral, as the northern states clearly did not want it. If they had, any attempt by Lincoln to quell the insurrection would have met with failure, due to lack of ability to enforce his will (troops).  That question was also answered by war. 

Once it came to a fight, even the southerners saw thier creation of a new government as a second revolution. In fact they even quashed counter-revolutionaries in eastern tenessee, who desired to remain in the union. If states can seceede from the federal government, why cant counties seccede from state governments? or towns from counties? or cities from towns?

The answer is that they can, but they require the consent of all parties involved in the level of joining that is being severed.


----------



## Uncensored2008

martybegan said:


> You fail to address the issue of such a system being ungovernable. If that is what you want, then, yes, you are an anarchist.



If I am an anarchist, then so was James Madison. (who was thus accused by Anti-Federalist George Clinton.)

The federal government was never intended to rule the states. Each state was sovereign and made it's own laws. The constitution provides a framework within which each member state must operate, but laws were the purvey of the many states. Note that no federal law enforcement agency existed. The Marshals were established as officers of the court, to enforce the will of the federal courts in judgement of disputes between the many states and to apprehend interstate criminals on the request of states. But no federal police force was created. 



> and yes, there are federal elections, which are for federal positions.



You are incorrect. 

When you cast your vote for Barack Obama next week, you will be establishing the desire for your representative to the electoral college to vote for Obama. You do not elect the president, nor do I. When you vote for Senate and congress, you vote for a STATE representative to those bodies, you have no say in the federal government. 

There are no federal elections, and never have been.



> They may be within the state, but they are not responsible to the state government. Senators used to be, but by amendment are no longer.  A governor or a state legislature cannot tell a legislative representative how to vote, nor can he tell a senator.



The election is run purely by the state. Senators were appointed by governors, but were never responsible to state government. They are representatives of the people of the state.



> I know the  constitution has been messed with, with far too much power going to the federal level above the state level. But that does not result in the right to seccession without the consent of the rest of the whole.



If you were to join Steel Workers Local #9, would you expect that a vote of all members would be required for you to leave and become a lawyer or other professional?



> Another point to be made is that the northern states themselves could have stopped the Federal government cold by not giving support to Lincoln, nor answering the callup for state regiments. It wasnt the feds only who disagreed with secesssion, it was the other states involved in the compact.



In fact many voices in the North did oppose Lincoln. They were dragged to prison and sometimes locked out of congress.



> If the states decide together to break up, then it would be acceptable. For a minority of states to decide to leave is like any other party trying to weasel out of its contract when they decide it is not in thier interests, with no compensation for the other parties.



Not at this point. We are a captive people. Nothing short of open revolt would allow any state to secede under any circumstance.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

martybegan said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no right to secession, especially in a republican based form of government. You can leave, but you cannot seceede.  To allow secession unless it is with the consent of all parties involved is to make any higher level of government unworkable.
> 
> There is always a right to revolution, but for that you have to be willing to fight for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're going back to the old standby of repeating the same mantra over and over without addressing the points other people have brought up?
> 
> Yes, sometimes fighting for your rights is necessary. However, to say that there is a right to revolution is to admit that there's a right to secession, and there's no inherent reason that it must be fought over. Only if the right is not recognized does it have to be fought for. Fighting, in and of itself, offers no legitimacy whatsoever. Either the right exists or it doesn't. Fighting doesn't change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fighting is what happens when two sides cannot agree on something. In statecraft, its called war. A right to seccession makes representative government at the level seccesion is allowed impossible, as each party can then threaten to leave any time it does not get its way. It was this impossibility that led to the Civil War.  At that point the question was if secession can be unilateral, as the northern states clearly did not want it. If they had, any attempt by Lincoln to quell the insurrection would have met with failure, due to lack of ability to enforce his will (troops).  That question was also answered by war.
> 
> Once it came to a fight, even the southerners saw thier creation of a new government as a second revolution. In fact they even quashed counter-revolutionaries in eastern tenessee, who desired to remain in the union. If states can seceede from the federal government, why cant counties seccede from state governments? or towns from counties? or cities from towns?
> 
> The answer is that they can, but they require the consent of all parties involved in the level of joining that is being severed.
Click to expand...


If you and I are talking and you try to stifle my freedom of speech, it doesn't necessarily follow that if you beat me up my right to say what I want never existed. The right existed, and still exists, but is merely be quashed by the use of force. That's exactly what happened with secession, as you basically admitted when you said there's a right to revolution. You think violence grants some legitimacy, but I see no reason for that to be the case. As for the north not agreeing with secession, that's incorrect. The north clearly believed there was a right to secession, as the 1814 Hartford Convention clearly shows. However, even in the case of the south the north was completely uninterested in forcing them to remain in the Union until Fort Sumter. Even then the war fever was more about them attacking the Union than in forcing them to stay in the Union.

Of course the Confederates put down secessionist plots within their borders, as they were no less hypocritical than the Union. Though it should be pointed out that the relationship of counties to states, or cities to states is not the same as the relationship of the states to the federal government, you're absolutely correct on this point. They should have every right to secede if they so choose.

And again, you keep stating that in order to secede one must have the permission of everybody else, but you can't back it up. Where is that stated? Is it in the Federalist Papers? The Declaration of Independence? The Constitution?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Uncensored2008 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You fail to address the issue of such a system being ungovernable. If that is what you want, then, yes, you are an anarchist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I am an anarchist, then so was James Madison. (who was thus accused by Anti-Federalist George Clinton.)
> 
> The federal government was never intended to rule the states. Each state was sovereign and made it's own laws. The constitution provides a framework within which each member state must operate, but laws were the purvey of the many states. Note that no federal law enforcement agency existed. The Marshals were established as officers of the court, to enforce the will of the federal courts in judgement of disputes between the many states and to apprehend interstate criminals on the request of states. But no federal police force was created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and yes, there are federal elections, which are for federal positions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are incorrect.
> 
> When you cast your vote for Barack Obama next week, you will be establishing the desire for your representative to the electoral college to vote for Obama. You do not elect the president, nor do I. When you vote for Senate and congress, you vote for a STATE representative to those bodies, you have no say in the federal government.
> 
> There are no federal elections, and never have been.
> 
> 
> 
> The election is run purely by the state. Senators were appointed by governors, but were never responsible to state government. They are representatives of the people of the state.
> 
> 
> 
> If you were to join Steel Workers Local #9, would you expect that a vote of all members would be required for you to leave and become a lawyer or other professional?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another point to be made is that the northern states themselves could have stopped the Federal government cold by not giving support to Lincoln, nor answering the callup for state regiments. It wasnt the feds only who disagreed with secesssion, it was the other states involved in the compact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *In fact many voices in the North did oppose Lincoln. They were dragged to prison and sometimes locked out of congress.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the states decide together to break up, then it would be acceptable. For a minority of states to decide to leave is like any other party trying to weasel out of its contract when they decide it is not in thier interests, with no compensation for the other parties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at this point. We are a captive people. Nothing short of open revolt would allow any state to secede under any circumstance.
Click to expand...


Another good point. Lincoln imprisoned hundreds of northern newspaper editors, and even deported an Ohio Congressman.


----------



## martybegan

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You fail to address the issue of such a system being ungovernable. If that is what you want, then, yes, you are an anarchist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I am an anarchist, then so was James Madison. (who was thus accused by Anti-Federalist George Clinton.)
> 
> The federal government was never intended to rule the states. Each state was sovereign and made it's own laws. The constitution provides a framework within which each member state must operate, but laws were the purvey of the many states. Note that no federal law enforcement agency existed. The Marshals were established as officers of the court, to enforce the will of the federal courts in judgement of disputes between the many states and to apprehend interstate criminals on the request of states. But no federal police force was created.
> 
> 
> 
> You are incorrect.
> 
> When you cast your vote for Barack Obama next week, you will be establishing the desire for your representative to the electoral college to vote for Obama. You do not elect the president, nor do I. When you vote for Senate and congress, you vote for a STATE representative to those bodies, you have no say in the federal government.
> 
> There are no federal elections, and never have been.
> 
> 
> 
> The election is run purely by the state. Senators were appointed by governors, but were never responsible to state government. They are representatives of the people of the state.
> 
> 
> 
> If you were to join Steel Workers Local #9, would you expect that a vote of all members would be required for you to leave and become a lawyer or other professional?
> 
> 
> 
> *In fact many voices in the North did oppose Lincoln. They were dragged to prison and sometimes locked out of congress.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the states decide together to break up, then it would be acceptable. For a minority of states to decide to leave is like any other party trying to weasel out of its contract when they decide it is not in thier interests, with no compensation for the other parties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at this point. We are a captive people. Nothing short of open revolt would allow any state to secede under any circumstance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another good point. Lincoln imprisoned hundreds of northern newspaper editors, and even deported an Ohio Congressman.
Click to expand...


I hate using Tu Quoque but so did Davis when it came to unionist sentiment.


----------



## martybegan

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're going back to the old standby of repeating the same mantra over and over without addressing the points other people have brought up?
> 
> Yes, sometimes fighting for your rights is necessary. However, to say that there is a right to revolution is to admit that there's a right to secession, and there's no inherent reason that it must be fought over. Only if the right is not recognized does it have to be fought for. Fighting, in and of itself, offers no legitimacy whatsoever. Either the right exists or it doesn't. Fighting doesn't change that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fighting is what happens when two sides cannot agree on something. In statecraft, its called war. A right to seccession makes representative government at the level seccesion is allowed impossible, as each party can then threaten to leave any time it does not get its way. It was this impossibility that led to the Civil War.  At that point the question was if secession can be unilateral, as the northern states clearly did not want it. If they had, any attempt by Lincoln to quell the insurrection would have met with failure, due to lack of ability to enforce his will (troops).  That question was also answered by war.
> 
> Once it came to a fight, even the southerners saw thier creation of a new government as a second revolution. In fact they even quashed counter-revolutionaries in eastern tenessee, who desired to remain in the union. If states can seceede from the federal government, why cant counties seccede from state governments? or towns from counties? or cities from towns?
> 
> The answer is that they can, but they require the consent of all parties involved in the level of joining that is being severed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you and I are talking and you try to stifle my freedom of speech, it doesn't necessarily follow that if you beat me up my right to say what I want never existed. The right existed, and still exists, but is merely be quashed by the use of force. That's exactly what happened with secession, as you basically admitted when you said there's a right to revolution. You think violence grants some legitimacy, but I see no reason for that to be the case. As for the north not agreeing with secession, that's incorrect. The north clearly believed there was a right to secession, as the 1814 Hartford Convention clearly shows. However, even in the case of the south the north was completely uninterested in forcing them to remain in the Union until Fort Sumter. Even then the war fever was more about them attacking the Union than in forcing them to stay in the Union.
> 
> Of course the Confederates put down secessionist plots within their borders, as they were no less hypocritical than the Union. Though it should be pointed out that the relationship of counties to states, or cities to states is not the same as the relationship of the states to the federal government, you're absolutely correct on this point. They should have every right to secede if they so choose.
> 
> And again, you keep stating that in order to secede one must have the permission of everybody else, but you can't back it up. Where is that stated? Is it in the Federalist Papers? The Declaration of Independence? The Constitution?
Click to expand...


The right to speech is enshrined in the consitution, and backed by law that would punish someone from attacking you for it. There is and was no law regarding seccession. 

And where is it stated explicity that they can seceede on thier own, not from a tyranical crown, but from a representative republic where all parties have a voice?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

martybegan said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I am an anarchist, then so was James Madison. (who was thus accused by Anti-Federalist George Clinton.)
> 
> The federal government was never intended to rule the states. Each state was sovereign and made it's own laws. The constitution provides a framework within which each member state must operate, but laws were the purvey of the many states. Note that no federal law enforcement agency existed. The Marshals were established as officers of the court, to enforce the will of the federal courts in judgement of disputes between the many states and to apprehend interstate criminals on the request of states. But no federal police force was created.
> 
> 
> 
> You are incorrect.
> 
> When you cast your vote for Barack Obama next week, you will be establishing the desire for your representative to the electoral college to vote for Obama. You do not elect the president, nor do I. When you vote for Senate and congress, you vote for a STATE representative to those bodies, you have no say in the federal government.
> 
> There are no federal elections, and never have been.
> 
> 
> 
> The election is run purely by the state. Senators were appointed by governors, but were never responsible to state government. They are representatives of the people of the state.
> 
> 
> 
> If you were to join Steel Workers Local #9, would you expect that a vote of all members would be required for you to leave and become a lawyer or other professional?
> 
> 
> 
> *In fact many voices in the North did oppose Lincoln. They were dragged to prison and sometimes locked out of congress.*
> 
> 
> 
> Not at this point. We are a captive people. Nothing short of open revolt would allow any state to secede under any circumstance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another good point. Lincoln imprisoned hundreds of northern newspaper editors, and even deported an Ohio Congressman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hate using Tu Quoque but so did Davis when it came to unionist sentiment.
Click to expand...


Of course he did, as I've already said the Confederacy was hardly any better than the Union. The point was that the north was not united as you claimed in wanting to force the south back into the Union.


----------



## martybegan

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another good point. Lincoln imprisoned hundreds of northern newspaper editors, and even deported an Ohio Congressman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hate using Tu Quoque but so did Davis when it came to unionist sentiment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course he did, as I've already said the Confederacy was hardly any better than the Union. The point was that the north was not united as you claimed in wanting to force the south back into the Union.
Click to expand...


Considering the hundreds of thousands of soliders who participated in the fight to do what you say was not so popular, I think it was. And before you trot out conscription the total of conscripted soliders was minimal and later in the war.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

martybegan said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fighting is what happens when two sides cannot agree on something. In statecraft, its called war. A right to seccession makes representative government at the level seccesion is allowed impossible, as each party can then threaten to leave any time it does not get its way. It was this impossibility that led to the Civil War.  At that point the question was if secession can be unilateral, as the northern states clearly did not want it. If they had, any attempt by Lincoln to quell the insurrection would have met with failure, due to lack of ability to enforce his will (troops).  That question was also answered by war.
> 
> Once it came to a fight, even the southerners saw thier creation of a new government as a second revolution. In fact they even quashed counter-revolutionaries in eastern tenessee, who desired to remain in the union. If states can seceede from the federal government, why cant counties seccede from state governments? or towns from counties? or cities from towns?
> 
> The answer is that they can, but they require the consent of all parties involved in the level of joining that is being severed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you and I are talking and you try to stifle my freedom of speech, it doesn't necessarily follow that if you beat me up my right to say what I want never existed. The right existed, and still exists, but is merely be quashed by the use of force. That's exactly what happened with secession, as you basically admitted when you said there's a right to revolution. You think violence grants some legitimacy, but I see no reason for that to be the case. As for the north not agreeing with secession, that's incorrect. The north clearly believed there was a right to secession, as the 1814 Hartford Convention clearly shows. However, even in the case of the south the north was completely uninterested in forcing them to remain in the Union until Fort Sumter. Even then the war fever was more about them attacking the Union than in forcing them to stay in the Union.
> 
> Of course the Confederates put down secessionist plots within their borders, as they were no less hypocritical than the Union. Though it should be pointed out that the relationship of counties to states, or cities to states is not the same as the relationship of the states to the federal government, you're absolutely correct on this point. They should have every right to secede if they so choose.
> 
> And again, you keep stating that in order to secede one must have the permission of everybody else, but you can't back it up. Where is that stated? Is it in the Federalist Papers? The Declaration of Independence? The Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to speech is enshrined in the consitution, and backed by law that would punish someone from attacking you for it. There is and was no law regarding seccession.
> 
> And where is it stated explicity that they can seceede on thier own, not from a tyranical crown, but from a representative republic where all parties have a voice?
Click to expand...


It's enshrined in the Constitution as a right that already exists. It's not artificially granted by the government, but merely something that the government promises not to infringe upon. Of course it breaks this promise all the time, but that's another story.

The 10th Amendment, as I've repeatedly pointed out, is where I find the right to secession. You say it's vague, but what's vague about it? The intent is clear. As for the "tyrannical crown" versus a "representative republic," it's an irrelevant point. The issue is whether the right to secession exists, not whether this particular instance was justified. Now, I've pointed out, repeatedly, where I find the right to secession in the Constitution. Can you point out where you find this idea that to secede a state has to get the permission of the other states?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

martybegan said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate using Tu Quoque but so did Davis when it came to unionist sentiment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he did, as I've already said the Confederacy was hardly any better than the Union. The point was that the north was not united as you claimed in wanting to force the south back into the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering the hundreds of thousands of soliders who participated in the fight to do what you say was not so popular, I think it was. And before you trot out conscription the total of conscripted soliders was minimal and later in the war.
Click to expand...


I won't mention the conscription, because it's unnecessary. I'll simply point out the fact that the war didn't start when the southern states seceded, but only after they took over Fort Sumter. The majority feeling in the north, prior to Fort Sumter, was "good riddance." Lincoln orchestrated Fort Sumter because he needed northern sentiment on his side for his war, which he did not have up to that point. When the south attacked he was able to whip up the northern citizens into a war fever.


----------



## thanatos144

Uncensored2008 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enough with the hero worship of slave owning traitors!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a serious problem. Too many think that examining the constitutionality of the acts of Lincoln is to "side" with the Antebellum South.
> 
> The South was a miserable place, a feudal shit hole that denied opportunity and hope to all but a tiny elite. Slavery was abhorrent, yet the treatment of free whites who were not of the landed gentry was far worse than that which the slave endured.
> 
> Hero worship? Far from it. But the fact is that Lincoln was a traitor and violated the constitution, ending the pact that the founding fathers had created.
Click to expand...


Yes hero worship......The fact is the union didn't start the war!Fact is the confederates did when they learned that slavery would not be allowed in the new settlements. The civil war was never about the poor freedom loving south it was about them wanting to spread slavery to more and more lands....When they were denied???? They attacked bases ....several times.....Of course the union should have seen that coming since they couldn't seem to be able to keep to their agreements.


----------



## Unkotare

F.d.r.


----------



## whitehall

Lee Harvey Oswald. Shortly after Oswald, who worked in the U-2 program in Japan, renounced his citizenship and defected to the USSR the U-2 spy plane was shot down and Powers was captured. For some reason known only to the CIA Oswald was welcomed back to the USA with his Russian wife who was the daughter of a KGB officer and the rest is history.


----------



## Politico

How the hell did you get into another secession argument?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the idea that "might makes right," but I think we can look at plenty of historical examples where the winning side wasn't "right."
> 
> Also, the tenth amendment disagrees with your last assertion.
> 
> "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."
> 
> Secession is not prohibited by the United States Constitution to the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the founders wanted a way for states to get out, wouldnt you think they would have included it?
> 
> A federal system where secession is allowed in ungovernable, because every time a side lost an election, they could threaten to leave. We would end up with gridlock, or a bunch of feudal groupings of states, with no regulations between them.
> 
> The Civil war ended this argument. Feel free to try to fight it again, and enjoy losing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say that all the states would have to agree to let another state leave the Union, or at least a majority. Don't you think if that were the case the founders would have included it? Nowhere is that said in the Constitution. For secession, however, we can look to the 10th Amendment, as I've already pointed out.
> 
> And yet that's not what happened. We had very few instances of genuine threats to secede up until the first southern states actually seceded. 1814 might be the only real example up to that point. The point was that secession would be just another check on the federal government's power. If the federal government was usurping power that it wasn't supposed to have then of course the states were meant to secede. It's the reason states like Virginia and Rhode Island reserved the right to secede, with no complaints from anybody else, when they ratified the Constitution.
> 
> And see, we were having such a good discussion up to this point. Who wants to fight the Civil War over again?
Click to expand...


This was settled in 1869. Texas sued and lost, the Supreme Court ruled that indeed one must have congressional approval to leave the Union. Last I checked the Supreme Court is the final arbitrator. Or are you claiming the States can ignore that abortion is legal now?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say that all the states would have to agree to let another state leave the Union, or at least a majority. Don't you think if that were the case the founders would have included it? Nowhere is that said in the Constitution. For secession, however, we can look to the 10th Amendment, as I've already pointed out.
> 
> And yet that's not what happened. We had very few instances of genuine threats to secede up until the first southern states actually seceded. 1814 might be the only real example up to that point. The point was that secession would be just another check on the federal government's power. If the federal government was usurping power that it wasn't supposed to have then of course the states were meant to secede. It's the reason states like Virginia and Rhode Island reserved the right to secede, with no complaints from anybody else, when they ratified the Constitution.
> 
> And see, we were having such a good discussion up to this point. Who wants to fight the Civil War over again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Virginia and Rhode Island truly wanted the right to seceede they would have put it in the document, and not left it up to the vagarities of the 10th amendment.
> 
> And secession is not a check, it is a knife held at the throat of the very concept of federalism. A system were secession without consent of the whole is allowed is unworkable, again as I said, denegrating into a bunch of micro-nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then where is the idea that any state who wants to secede has to be permitted to do so from the other states? You claim the 10th Amendment is vague, though it seems pretty straight forward to me, but your claim is nonexistent.
> 
> Of course secession is a check, and that's how it worked up until South Carolina finally used it. The system, of course, was designed to favor the states over the federal government, because this was a people who wanted to jealously guard their liberty from a powerful centralized government the likes of which they had just broken away from. You say that this idea is a "knife at the throat of federalism," but you're using the wrong term. This idea was the bedrock of federalism, it was merely a knife at the throat of the federal government. Which is exactly what was intended.
Click to expand...


The Supreme Court ruled one needs Congressional approval to leave the Union, case closed.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Uncensored2008 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enough with the hero worship of slave owning traitors!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a serious problem. Too many think that examining the constitutionality of the acts of Lincoln is to "side" with the Antebellum South.
> 
> The South was a miserable place, a feudal shit hole that denied opportunity and hope to all but a tiny elite. Slavery was abhorrent, yet the treatment of free whites who were not of the landed gentry was far worse than that which the slave endured.
> 
> Hero worship? Far from it. But the fact is that Lincoln was a traitor and violated the constitution, ending the pact that the founding fathers had created.
Click to expand...


Absolutely WRONG. The Supreme Court which is the final arbitrator on what is and is not Constitutional ruled that the ONLY way a State can leave the Union is with the approval of the Congress.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

RetiredGySgt said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the founders wanted a way for states to get out, wouldnt you think they would have included it?
> 
> A federal system where secession is allowed in ungovernable, because every time a side lost an election, they could threaten to leave. We would end up with gridlock, or a bunch of feudal groupings of states, with no regulations between them.
> 
> The Civil war ended this argument. Feel free to try to fight it again, and enjoy losing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that all the states would have to agree to let another state leave the Union, or at least a majority. Don't you think if that were the case the founders would have included it? Nowhere is that said in the Constitution. For secession, however, we can look to the 10th Amendment, as I've already pointed out.
> 
> And yet that's not what happened. We had very few instances of genuine threats to secede up until the first southern states actually seceded. 1814 might be the only real example up to that point. The point was that secession would be just another check on the federal government's power. If the federal government was usurping power that it wasn't supposed to have then of course the states were meant to secede. It's the reason states like Virginia and Rhode Island reserved the right to secede, with no complaints from anybody else, when they ratified the Constitution.
> 
> And see, we were having such a good discussion up to this point. Who wants to fight the Civil War over again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This was settled in 1869. Texas sued and lost, the Supreme Court ruled that indeed one must have congressional approval to leave the Union. Last I checked the Supreme Court is the final arbitrator. Or are you claiming the States can ignore that abortion is legal now?
Click to expand...


Yes.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

RetiredGySgt said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Virginia and Rhode Island truly wanted the right to seceede they would have put it in the document, and not left it up to the vagarities of the 10th amendment.
> 
> And secession is not a check, it is a knife held at the throat of the very concept of federalism. A system were secession without consent of the whole is allowed is unworkable, again as I said, denegrating into a bunch of micro-nations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then where is the idea that any state who wants to secede has to be permitted to do so from the other states? You claim the 10th Amendment is vague, though it seems pretty straight forward to me, but your claim is nonexistent.
> 
> Of course secession is a check, and that's how it worked up until South Carolina finally used it. The system, of course, was designed to favor the states over the federal government, because this was a people who wanted to jealously guard their liberty from a powerful centralized government the likes of which they had just broken away from. You say that this idea is a "knife at the throat of federalism," but you're using the wrong term. This idea was the bedrock of federalism, it was merely a knife at the throat of the federal government. Which is exactly what was intended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court ruled one needs Congressional approval to leave the Union, case closed.
Click to expand...


Then why are you concerned about abortion? Or Obamacare? The Court ruled. You lost. Case closed.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Thunderbird said:


> Many possibilities: Aldrich Ames, the Rosenbergs, or Benedict Arnold himself.  My nominee is Harry Dexter White.
> 
> quote: 1. White was the real author of the Morgenthau plan to "turn Germany into a potato field," which when leaked, united non-Nazis with Nazis, stiffened resistance, and prolonged the war.
> 2. White used his position in the Treasury Department to develop a hostile U.S. policy toward Japan. The reason was to distract Japan from their plans to attack the Soviet Union and draw the U.S. into the war as an ally with the Soviet Union.
> 3. White was the author of an extreme ultimatum that Japan could not comply with in the days just prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
> 4. White delayed financial support mandated by law to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist Chinese government causing the triumph of Mao Tse-Tung's Communist Chinese government.
> 5. White was instrumental in handing over the Allied Military mark printing plates to the Soviets. This caused a $250,000,000 deficit in the occupational government budget paid out by the U.S. Treasury. This in effect amounted to the US taxpayer paying the salaries of Soviet occupation troops at a time when US/Soviet relations were deteriorating precisely because of the presence and behavior of Soviet occupation forces in Eastern Europe.
> 
> LINK



FDR

your guy worked for fdr


----------



## whitehall

Come on you freaking historical deprived union educated alleged Americans. The Country was different when Arnold decided the Revolution might not be a good idea and when the States were more powerful than the foggy bottom based federal government that advocated slavery for two hundred years. It was the United State's Flag that flew off slave ships not the Confederate flag. The world changed after the turn of the 20th century. Can we restrict the argument to relevant issues like real traitors? Lee Harvey Oswald defected to Russia and returned with his KGB wife and murdered the president.


----------



## Unkotare

whitehall said:


> Can we restrict the argument to relevant issues like real traitors? .






Like I said, FDR.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Unkotare said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can we restrict the argument to relevant issues like real traitors? .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, FDR.
Click to expand...


ditto

fdr should have been arrested, tried and given life w/o parole for the horrors he visited upon American citizens.

hell, just what's easy to point at should have gotten him the chair.

jailing innocent citizens b/c they didn't have a good last name or had yellow faces.
Taking property
confiscating wealth
wasted billions and knew it was failing
got us into WW2 to save his ass.
3rd term


----------



## thanatos144

whitehall said:


> Come on you freaking historical deprived union educated alleged Americans. The Country was different when Arnold decided the Revolution might not be a good idea and when the States were more powerful than the foggy bottom based federal government that advocated slavery for two hundred years. It was the United State's Flag that flew off slave ships not the Confederate flag. The world changed after the turn of the 20th century. Can we restrict the argument to relevant issues like real traitors? Lee Harvey Oswald defected to Russia and returned with his KGB wife and murdered the president.



It was people flying the American flag that ended slavery it was those flying the Confederate flagg killing to keep it. Perspective.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

thanatos144 said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on you freaking historical deprived union educated alleged Americans. The Country was different when Arnold decided the Revolution might not be a good idea and when the States were more powerful than the foggy bottom based federal government that advocated slavery for two hundred years. It was the United State's Flag that flew off slave ships not the Confederate flag. The world changed after the turn of the 20th century. Can we restrict the argument to relevant issues like real traitors? Lee Harvey Oswald defected to Russia and returned with his KGB wife and murdered the president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was people flying the American flag that ended slavery it was those flying the Confederate flagg killing to keep it. Perspective.
Click to expand...


Five states flying Old Glory still practiced slavery during the Civil War. Knowledge.


----------



## gipper

The worst traitor in US history is very easy to identify.  Dishonest Abe is without question the worst traitor because he committed war on Americans.  The War of Northern Aggression killed more Americans than all other wars combined. 

This is the definition of treason from the Constitution Section 3 article 3:



> Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them (meaning the sovereign states of the United States), or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.



As such, Lincoln's actions clearly fit the definition of treason.  He is the worse American traitor in all American history and yet amazingly, this disgusting murderer and tyrant is admired by millions of Americans.  Just shows how the p-schools are nothing more than indoctrination centers.


----------



## thanatos144

gipper said:


> The worst traitor in US history is very easy to identify.  Dishonest Abe is without question the worst traitor because he committed war on Americans.  The War of Northern Aggression killed more Americans than all other wars combined.
> 
> This is the definition of treason from the Constitution Section 3 article 3:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them (meaning the sovereign states of the United States), or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As such, Lincoln's actions clearly fit the definition of treason.  He is the worse American traitor in all American history and yet amazingly, this disgusting murderer and tyrant is admired by millions of Americans.  Just shows how the p-schools are nothing more than indoctrination centers.
Click to expand...

Look another confederate fanboy idiot. Hey genius it was the confederates that started the war. If you going to wack off to slave owning bigots at least know the truth.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

thanatos144 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The worst traitor in US history is very easy to identify.  Dishonest Abe is without question the worst traitor because he committed war on Americans.  The War of Northern Aggression killed more Americans than all other wars combined.
> 
> This is the definition of treason from the Constitution Section 3 article 3:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them (meaning the sovereign states of the United States), or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As such, Lincoln's actions clearly fit the definition of treason.  He is the worse American traitor in all American history and yet amazingly, this disgusting murderer and tyrant is admired by millions of Americans.  Just shows how the p-schools are nothing more than indoctrination centers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look another confederate fanboy idiot. Hey genius it was the confederates that started the war. If you going to wack off to slave owning bigots at least know the truth.
Click to expand...


A ruse to fire first at Fort Sumpter "started the war."

Cork, you might want to stick to reading snack ingredients.


----------



## thanatos144

TakeAStepBack said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The worst traitor in US history is very easy to identify.  Dishonest Abe is without question the worst traitor because he committed war on Americans.  The War of Northern Aggression killed more Americans than all other wars combined.
> 
> This is the definition of treason from the Constitution Section 3 article 3:
> 
> 
> 
> As such, Lincoln's actions clearly fit the definition of treason.  He is the worse American traitor in all American history and yet amazingly, this disgusting murderer and tyrant is admired by millions of Americans.  Just shows how the p-schools are nothing more than indoctrination centers.
> 
> 
> 
> Look another confederate fanboy idiot. Hey genius it was the confederates that started the war. If you going to wack off to slave owning bigots at least know the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A ruse to fire first at Fort Sumpter "started the war."
> 
> Cork, you might want to stick to reading snack ingredients.
Click to expand...


You mean attacking a union base isnt a act of war??????? Only in your demented idiot mind....Dont you have a Ron Paul poster to beat off to?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

a union base in a seceded state. state rights, cork.


----------



## thanatos144

Just like all progressives trying to make the truth into something it isn't .... Must suck that your heroes are slave masters.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

I never indicated hero status, Corky. This i swhy you should stick to snack ingredient pronouncement and leave history to people with 85+ IQ levels.


----------



## rdean

I think Arab owned Fox News.


----------



## Uncensored2008

RetiredGySgt said:


> Absolutely WRONG. The Supreme Court which is the final arbitrator on what is and is not Constitutional ruled that the ONLY way a State can leave the Union is with the approval of the Congress.



So you seek the arbitrary and capricious rule of man, rather than the codified rule of law. 9 dictators who's word is law rather than immutable statute that defines to every citizen the contract between they and their government.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Thunderbird said:


> Many possibilities: Aldrich Ames, the Rosenbergs, or Benedict Arnold himself.  My nominee is Harry Dexter White.
> 
> quote: 1. White was the real author of the Morgenthau plan to "turn Germany into a potato field," which when leaked, united non-Nazis with Nazis, stiffened resistance, and prolonged the war.
> 2. White used his position in the Treasury Department to develop a hostile U.S. policy toward Japan. The reason was to distract Japan from their plans to attack the Soviet Union and draw the U.S. into the war as an ally with the Soviet Union.
> 3. White was the author of an extreme ultimatum that Japan could not comply with in the days just prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
> 4. White delayed financial support mandated by law to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist Chinese government causing the triumph of Mao Tse-Tung's Communist Chinese government.
> 5. White was instrumental in handing over the Allied Military mark printing plates to the Soviets. This caused a $250,000,000 deficit in the occupational government budget paid out by the U.S. Treasury. This in effect amounted to the US taxpayer paying the salaries of Soviet occupation troops at a time when US/Soviet relations were deteriorating precisely because of the presence and behavior of Soviet occupation forces in Eastern Europe.
> 
> LINK



The John Birch Society got into BIG trouble for pointing these things out 60 years ago.


----------



## Uncensored2008

rdean said:


> I think Arab owned Fox News.



You're not capable to thought, deany-weenie.


----------



## thanatos144

TakeAStepBack said:


> I never indicated hero status, Corky. This i swhy you should stick to snack ingredient pronouncement and leave history to people with 85+ IQ levels.



Seeing that would make it above 40 you would be out of it. Go back to wishing all black folk were still in bondage.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Uncensored2008 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely WRONG. The Supreme Court which is the final arbitrator on what is and is not Constitutional ruled that the ONLY way a State can leave the Union is with the approval of the Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you seek the arbitrary and capricious rule of man, rather than the codified rule of law. 9 dictators who's word is law rather than immutable statute that defines to every citizen the contract between they and their government.
Click to expand...


The Divine Right of Courts.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Uncensored2008 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely WRONG. The Supreme Court which is the final arbitrator on what is and is not Constitutional ruled that the ONLY way a State can leave the Union is with the approval of the Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you seek the arbitrary and capricious rule of man, rather than the codified rule of law. 9 dictators who's word is law rather than immutable statute that defines to every citizen the contract between they and their government.
Click to expand...


You argued that the Constitution was silent on the issue. The Court disagreed and it is the final arbitrator of the document. Do try and keep up.


----------



## Uncensored2008

RetiredGySgt said:


> You argued that the Constitution was silent on the issue.



On what issue?

I stated that examination of the crimes of Lincoln is not support of the Antebellum South. I said nothing of the Constitution being silent.



> The Court disagreed and it is the final arbitrator of the document. Do try and keep up.



I look at the court and see Marbury v. Madison, Dred Scott, Roe v, Wade, Kelo v. New London; and I have no reason to call the court that arbiter of anything. Courts exist to apply circumstance to law, not to create or alter the law itself.


----------



## gipper

thanatos144 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The worst traitor in US history is very easy to identify.  Dishonest Abe is without question the worst traitor because he committed war on Americans.  The War of Northern Aggression killed more Americans than all other wars combined.
> 
> This is the definition of treason from the Constitution Section 3 article 3:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them (meaning the sovereign states of the United States), or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As such, Lincoln's actions clearly fit the definition of treason.  He is the worse American traitor in all American history and yet amazingly, this disgusting murderer and tyrant is admired by millions of Americans.  Just shows how the p-schools are nothing more than indoctrination centers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look another confederate fanboy idiot. Hey genius it was the confederates that started the war. If you going to wack off to slave owning bigots at least know the truth.
Click to expand...


You obviously do not know history.  Lincoln set up the firing on Fort Sumter to start the war that ultimately killed something like 800k Americans.  Did you know that no one was killed or even injured during the Fort Sumter shelling?  Of course you didn't.  

Lincoln wanted war to impose tariffs on Southern goods. You probably are completely unaware of this due to the indoctrination you endured in the government schools like the rest of us.  Though some of us spent the time to educate ourselves and we learned the truth about Lincoln The Traitor....and some like you have not.


----------



## Thunderbird

And let's not forget the Rosenbergs.  They betrayed their country in order to give Stalin, one of the worst dictators in history, the A-bomb.  Their betrayal could have led to the deaths of millions of Americans.


----------



## Thunderbird

The Silvermaster spy ring included Harry Dexter White.


----------



## whitehall

There was no US and the Constitution had yet to be written at the time of the Revolutionary war so Arnold is eliminated in a legal sense. Loyalty to the states was an important issue in the Civil War so it is a waste of time to try to convict Lee and his generals when the federal government made no effort to do so after the war. It's probably a good idea to limit the search for the notorious traitors in the 20th century and you have to break it down to actual effect of the treason rather than the pop-culture's emotional version. In my mind Oswald is at the top of the list. He wasn't just an assassin, he was literally a traitor. The Rosenburg conspiracy has yet to be defined as to whether or not the Russians could have developed the A-bomb on their own. Jane Fonda should be on the list as well as her partner John Kerry in their plot to unite the anti-war faction with the civil rights unrest in the revolutionary "winter soldiers project". Bill Ayers certainly fits the bill with an almost decade long terrorism rampage and revolutionary agenda. The FBI and CIA spies were traitors but their brand of treason was localized and did nothing more than undermine a corrupt and failed intelligence system.


----------



## thanatos144

The united states media


----------



## Old Rocks

Uncensored2008 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you elaborate please, or is your response based on the self important view that "I disagree with this person, therefore they MUST be stupid?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin has already elaborated.
> 
> Why do you think we were named "The United States Of America?" Was it because George Washington established an empire where once colonies had stood? Trading the central authority of the British Crown for the central authority of Washington?  Or was it that 13 autonomous states, each with an independent government, elected from the people therein, formed a voluntary union for common defense and to arbitrate disputes of trade?
> 
> Because, IF this were a union, than any member can leave at any time. If it is an empire, then the sovereign will bring force of arms and call the attempt of people to govern themselves "treason" and "sedition."
Click to expand...


All flap-yap and nonsense. The issue was settled at Appomatox Court House. Only idiots bring it up again.


----------



## Old Rocks

thanatos144 said:


> The united states media



You lost. And will lose again.


----------



## Old Rocks

Uncensored2008 said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many possibilities: Aldrich Ames, the Rosenbergs, or Benedict Arnold himself.  My nominee is Harry Dexter White.
> 
> quote: 1. White was the real author of the Morgenthau plan to "turn Germany into a potato field," which when leaked, united non-Nazis with Nazis, stiffened resistance, and prolonged the war.
> 2. White used his position in the Treasury Department to develop a hostile U.S. policy toward Japan. The reason was to distract Japan from their plans to attack the Soviet Union and draw the U.S. into the war as an ally with the Soviet Union.
> 3. White was the author of an extreme ultimatum that Japan could not comply with in the days just prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
> 4. White delayed financial support mandated by law to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist Chinese government causing the triumph of Mao Tse-Tung's Communist Chinese government.
> 5. White was instrumental in handing over the Allied Military mark printing plates to the Soviets. This caused a $250,000,000 deficit in the occupational government budget paid out by the U.S. Treasury. This in effect amounted to the US taxpayer paying the salaries of Soviet occupation troops at a time when US/Soviet relations were deteriorating precisely because of the presence and behavior of Soviet occupation forces in Eastern Europe.
> 
> LINK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The John Birch Society got into BIG trouble for pointing these things out 60 years ago.
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pG6taS9R1KM]John Birch Society Song - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AylFqdxRMwE]Talkin&#39; John Birch Paranoid Blues - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## whitehall

The political reality 60 years ago was that democrat icon Harry Truman was so unpopular that he couldn't even get his own party to nominate him even though he was the incumbent president. Democrats lost big time to Ike and the US had a pretty good eight years despite the left's whining about the John Birchers.


----------



## JakeStarkey

They were colonies not states in 1775 clearly subordinate to the Crown.  The colonies had no legal right to leave the Empire without its permission.  Yes, GW was a traitor to the crown.



Kevin_Kennedy said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue that this would be the point. The founders, and this is actually an issue they were almost unanimous on at the time, did not believe in majority rule.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did believe in limited franchise, but within that franchise the state legislatures went with majority rule, as did the house of representatives they set up.
> 
> The electoral college votes by majority rule, as does the supreme court, and the sentate (in most cases).
> 
> The overall mechanics of a republic is rule by a majority, tempered by a consitution which guarantees certain limits on the pure majorites ability for action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well let's go back to the colonies and the King, you said they won the war so the point is moot. But it's not. Either they had the right to secede, or they didn't. Whether the war was won or lost is irrelevant. So did they have the right or didn't they? I mean, Britain was just going by majority rule, right? Why shouldn't the colonies have had to pay for the war that was fought essentially on their behalf?
Click to expand...


----------



## whitehall

Oswald as far as the actual impact on the United States was the most notorious traitor in history. Aldrich Ames was a flunkie CIA agent and they couldn't even find him in the next cubicle and Robert Hanssen was a flunkie FBI agent and he shouldn't even had international clearance. Both were more of a symptom of what the intelligence community had degenerated to than an actual threat to American security. Jane Fonda was a genuine revolutionary and together with her sidekick, former Navy Lt John Kerry they were genuine traitors out to overthrow the government. Bill Ayers was a revolutionary who's intention was to overthrow the US government.


----------



## gipper

whitehall said:


> Oswald as far as the actual impact on the United States was the most notorious traitor in history.



That is if you believe the lies put out by the government regarding the JFK assassination.

I believe the evidence is overwhelming and proves Oswald never fired a gun on that terrible day in Dallas.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Joe McCarthy for his efforts to subvert American liberties.


----------



## thanatos144

Old Rocks said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The united states media
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You lost. And will lose again.
Click to expand...

Only idiots like you will keep voting democrat after the tyrants last term.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> They were colonies not states in 1775 clearly subordinate to the Crown.  The colonies had no legal right to leave the Empire without its permission.  Yes, GW was a traitor to the crown.
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> They did believe in limited franchise, but within that franchise the state legislatures went with majority rule, as did the house of representatives they set up.
> 
> The electoral college votes by majority rule, as does the supreme court, and the sentate (in most cases).
> 
> The overall mechanics of a republic is rule by a majority, tempered by a consitution which guarantees certain limits on the pure majorites ability for action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well let's go back to the colonies and the King, you said they won the war so the point is moot. But it's not. Either they had the right to secede, or they didn't. Whether the war was won or lost is irrelevant. So did they have the right or didn't they? I mean, Britain was just going by majority rule, right? Why shouldn't the colonies have had to pay for the war that was fought essentially on their behalf?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Then I suggest we beg forgiveness and ask David Cameron to take us back, posthaste. We had no right to leave, so we obviously have to go back.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kevin_Kennedy, we both know, my good friend, that the force of arms wins most arguments.

I hope you have a great Holiday Season and a Merry Christmas, if you swing that way.


----------



## RosieS

Worst traitor ever? Anwar al-Awlaki. Got his son to be a traitor, too. 

Hint: Turn against your birthplace, America, and work on killing Americans and Obama will give you and your traitorous son Predator drone suppositories.

Helps me sleep easier every nite.

Regards from Rosie


----------



## Dreamy

American born US traitor?

John Walker, the USN officer.

Jane Fonda comes to mind also.


----------



## Uncensored2008

RosieS said:


> Worst traitor ever? Anwar al-Awlaki. Got his son to be a traitor, too.
> 
> Hint: Turn against your birthplace, America, and work on killing Americans and Obama will give you and your traitorous son Predator drone suppositories.
> 
> Helps me sleep easier every nite.
> 
> Regards from Rosie



Murdering American citizens without warrant, trial, tribunal, arrest, or warning makes leftist fucktards all warm and fuzzy inside.

Makes you dream of Pol Pot and the future you desire...


----------



## RosieS

Uncensored2008 said:


> RosieS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Worst traitor ever? Anwar al-Awlaki. Got his son to be a traitor, too.
> 
> Hint: Turn against your birthplace, America, and work on killing Americans and Obama will give you and your traitorous son Predator drone suppositories.
> 
> Helps me sleep easier every nite.
> 
> Regards from Rosie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murdering American citizens without warrant, trial, tribunal, arrest, or warning makes leftist fucktards all warm and fuzzy inside.
> 
> Makes you dream of Pol Pot and the future you desire...
Click to expand...


Yup. No need for trial given his role in the killing of 13 Ft. Hood soldiers. They need to quit farting around and put Nidal Hasan in front of a firing squad, too. Traitors in wartime don't get citizenship protections

This. Is. War...not tiddly winks Ballerina Boy.

Regards from Rosie


----------



## Uncensored2008

RosieS said:


> Yup. No need for trial given his role in the killing of 13 Ft. Hood soldiers. They need to quit farting around and put Nidal Hasan in front of a firing squad, too. Traitors in wartime don't get citizenship protections
> 
> This. Is. War...not tiddly winks Ballerina Boy.
> 
> Regards from Rosie



Do you support summary executions in the street for anyone failing to take a loyalty oath to Lord Obama?


----------



## JakeStarkey

By the Constitution and the rules of war, when this man declared war against America, warrant and trial and tribunal and arrest and execution were only a matter of time.

You are close to treason for aiding and abetting traitors, Uncensored.





Uncensored2008 said:


> RosieS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Worst traitor ever? Anwar al-Awlaki. Got his son to be a traitor, too.
> 
> Hint: Turn against your birthplace, America, and work on killing Americans and Obama will give you and your traitorous son Predator drone suppositories.
> 
> Helps me sleep easier every nite.
> 
> Regards from Rosie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murdering American citizens without warrant, trial, tribunal, arrest, or warning makes leftist fucktards all warm and fuzzy inside.
> 
> Makes you dream of Pol Pot and the future you desire...
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Fluffer Uncensored gives us some hyperbole as the Board Jester and Official Fool.



Uncensored2008 said:


> RosieS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. No need for trial given his role in the killing of 13 Ft. Hood soldiers. They need to quit farting around and put Nidal Hasan in front of a firing squad, too. Traitors in wartime don't get citizenship protections
> 
> This. Is. War...not tiddly winks Ballerina Boy.
> 
> Regards from Rosie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you support summary executions in the street for anyone failing to take a loyalty oath to Lord Obama?
Click to expand...


----------



## RosieS

Uncensored2008 said:


> RosieS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. No need for trial given his role in the killing of 13 Ft. Hood soldiers. They need to quit farting around and put Nidal Hasan in front of a firing squad, too. Traitors in wartime don't get citizenship protections
> 
> This. Is. War...not tiddly winks Ballerina Boy.
> 
> Regards from Rosie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you support summary executions in the street for anyone failing to take a loyalty oath to Lord Obama?
Click to expand...


I support the Commander-in-Chief doing the primary CiC job: protecting innocent American lives and the lives of our troops.

You evidently took a disloyalty oath in the past four years. You can't hear the approach 
of a Predator, prissy mister.

Regards from Rosie


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> By the Constitution and the rules of war, when this man declared war against America, warrant and trial and tribunal and arrest and execution were only a matter of time.



BWAHAHAHAHAHA

You are one stupid fuck, Jakematters.

An individual cannot "declare war," shit fer brains.

If arrest was imminent, why did Obama murder him instead of just picking him up?



> You are close to treason for aiding and abetting traitors, Uncensored.



Will your little tin god murder me, Jakematters?

Treason against our ruler, Barack Obama?


----------



## Uncensored2008

RosieS said:


> I support the Commander-in-Chief doing the primary CiC job:



Such as murdering American citizens sans due process?



> protecting innocent American lives and the lives of our troops.



Is anyone who has not sworn an loyalty oath to Obama innocent? Or even a "citizen?"



> You evidently took a disloyalty oath in the past four years. You can't hear the approach
> of a Predator, prissy mister.
> 
> Regards from Rosie



So then, you urge the day when Obama starts murdering American citizens on American soil?

Anyone wonder how Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Mao could murder hundreds of millions? Rosie and Jakematters are the answer.


----------



## RosieS

Uncensored2008 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the Constitution and the rules of war, when this man declared war against America, warrant and trial and tribunal and arrest and execution were only a matter of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWAHAHAHAHAHA
> 
> You are one stupid fuck, Jakematters.
> 
> An individual cannot "declare war," shit fer brains.
> 
> If arrest was imminent, why did Obama murder him instead of just picking him up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are close to treason for aiding and abetting traitors, Uncensored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Will your little tin god murder me, Jakematters?
> 
> Treason against our ruler, Barack Obama?
Click to expand...


Listen dipshyte. The War is The War on Terror declared by Dubya.

Al-Awlaki was in Yemen. No need to risk the blood of our soldiers when a drone can take out an enemy combatant and only risk microchips.

"Enemy combatant" is a Bush-era concept. Blame them if you don't like it.

You type too much for someone who has just shown he knows nothing about this.

Regards from Rosie


----------



## oldfart

martybegan said:


> The idea that a losing side in a democratic vote is able to leave a set union just because they lost negates any concept of representative majority rule government. Of course they can leave if they want to fight for it.



Check out Lincoln's First Inagaural Address.  He makes two points about succession:  first that it is the essence of anarchy, for if states could leave the Union, what prevented dissatisfied portions of states from leaving a state?  But more importantly he ruled that the citizens had a right to to change the government constitutionally, and a revolutionary right to alter it by force.  He clearly had Washington in mind when he wrote this.  Of course he also made the point that the rebels had no oath "registered in Heaven" to dismantle the government, but he had one to protect the Constitution and the Union.  The implication is that while there may be a revolutionary "right" to dissolve the Union, it would be opposed, and that the right only exists to those who are successful.


----------



## Uncensored2008

RosieS said:


> Listen dipshyte. The War is The War on Terror declared by Dubya.



I don't recall Dubya shitting on the U.S. Constitution and murdering American Citizens, that had to wait for Barry Cardashian to come along.

What is really telling is that you frauds of the left was HOWLING about Abu Ghraib and that it was a "war crime." But along comes your little tin god and flat out murders an American, and it's all good  - because you have no ethics, no values, no principle, only loyalty to your shameful party.



> Al-Awlaki was in Yemen. No need to risk the blood of our soldiers when a drone can take out an enemy combatant and only risk microchips.



Maybe we can keep our secret police from risking harm arresting people here at home, just kill the suspect. This is the brave new world of Obama - which is a fuck lot like the brave old world of Pol Pot - with you retards cheering that "our team won," thinking this somehow gives you an identity...



> "Enemy combatant" is a Bush-era concept. Blame them if you don't like it.



Blame Bush for Obama murdering American citizens?

Sounds like the new Mantra of you Khmer Rouge types.



> You type too much for someone who has just shown he knows nothing about this.
> 
> Regards from Rosie



Perhaps you of the Khmer Rouge can purge the intellectuals who question the actions of Dear Leader and cling to the constitution of the Old Republic?


----------



## JakeStarkey

The below is why no one respects you, UncensoredFluffer.

We are at war.  The traitor was where US security forces could not secure him.  He was aiding and abetting those killing our people.

So you want to protect him with specious arguments.

Naw, I don't think you are going to a FEMA camp, at least not  yet.



Uncensored2008 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the Constitution and the rules of war, when this man declared war against America, warrant and trial and tribunal and arrest and execution were only a matter of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWAHAHAHAHAHA
> 
> You are one stupid fuck, Jakematters.
> 
> An individual cannot "declare war," shit fer brains.
> 
> If arrest was imminent, why did Obama murder him instead of just picking him up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are close to treason for aiding and abetting traitors, Uncensored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Will your little tin god murder me, Jakematters?
> 
> Treason against our ruler, Barack Obama?
Click to expand...


----------



## thanatos144

Dreamy said:


> American born US traitor?
> 
> John Walker, the USN officer.
> 
> Jane Fonda comes to mind also.



I never heard of Walker being in the navy..... Idiot college student yea but not the navy. Where was this evidence?


----------



## rightwinger

thanatos144 said:


> Dreamy said:
> 
> 
> 
> American born US traitor?
> 
> John Walker, the USN officer.
> 
> Jane Fonda comes to mind also.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never heard of Walker being in the navy..... Idiot college student yea but not the navy. Where was this evidence?
Click to expand...


John Anthony Walker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think you have him confused with Christopher Boyce from Falcon and the Snowman


----------



## thanatos144

rightwinger said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dreamy said:
> 
> 
> 
> American born US traitor?
> 
> John Walker, the USN officer.
> 
> Jane Fonda comes to mind also.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never heard of Walker being in the navy..... Idiot college student yea but not the navy. Where was this evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> John Anthony Walker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I think you have him confused with Christopher Boyce from Falcon and the Snowman
Click to expand...


I got him mistaken with  John Walker Lindh the asshole that joined to Taliban to kill Americans


----------



## rightwinger

thanatos144 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never heard of Walker being in the navy..... Idiot college student yea but not the navy. Where was this evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Anthony Walker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I think you have him confused with Christopher Boyce from Falcon and the Snowman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got him mistaken with  John Walker Lindh the asshole that joined to Taliban to kill Americans
Click to expand...


I could see that


----------



## thanatos144

rightwinger said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> John Anthony Walker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I think you have him confused with Christopher Boyce from Falcon and the Snowman
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got him mistaken with  John Walker Lindh the asshole that joined to Taliban to kill Americans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could see that
Click to expand...


New rule for me... never name your kid John Walker


----------



## Katzndogz

In 50 years it will be barack obama.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Tomorrow the new epithet will be "you katzndogz dummy".


----------



## Katzndogz

JakeStarkey said:


> Tomorrow the new epithet will be "you katzndogz dummy".



Lenin and Stalin were heroes of the communists for years, not so much now knowing what communism did to Russia.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> Tomorrow the new epithet will be "you katzndogz dummy".



No, it will remain "You're a real Jakematters," to denote a level of retardation beyond the pale.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Katzndogz said:


> Lenin and Stalin were heroes of the communists for years, not so much now knowing what communism did to Russia.



What a coincidence; they are still heroes to Jakematter, not quite up with Pol Pot, but he loves them anyway.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Eunuch Extremest, the Balless Fluffer, himself the UncensoredFluffer shows his lack of  manhood yet again.



Uncensored2008 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tomorrow the new epithet will be "you katzndogz dummy".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it will remain "You're a real Jakematters," to denote a level of retardation beyond the pale.
Click to expand...


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> Eunuch Extremest, the Balless Fluffer, himself the UncensoredFluffer shows his lack of  manhood yet again.



I'm sure that somewhere in your sterno huffing, paint chip munching, MadDog glugging mush of a mind, that made sense and was truly witty, Jakematters...


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson Davis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even assuming that Davis was a traitor, how is the worst traitor in U.S. history a person that argued against secession while he was a U.S. Senator, and merely went along with his state?
Click to expand...


His state forced him to be the chief executive of the Confederate States of America?


Link?

The COnfederates were lucky the U.S. had already seceded from British. If they had tried to secede from Britain and failed everyone of their leaders would have been drawn and quartered in public.


----------



## thanatos144

Katzndogz said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tomorrow the new epithet will be "you katzndogz dummy".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lenin and Stalin were heroes of the communists for years, not so much now knowing what communism did to Russia.
Click to expand...


Your making a mistake....They still are heroes to communists they just are afraid of stating it openly....It was only the little people that died anyway.


----------



## CivFan

For the US:  I would say the worst traitor is Woodrow Wilson.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Back to pleasuring your male customers, UncensoredFluffer, EunuchExtremist.



Uncensored2008 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eunuch Extremest, the Balless Fluffer, himself the UncensoredFluffer shows his lack of  manhood yet again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure that somewhere in your sterno huffing, paint chip munching, MadDog glugging mush of a mind, that made sense and was truly witty, Jakematters...
Click to expand...


----------



## whitehall

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson Davis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even assuming that Davis was a traitor, how is the worst traitor in U.S. history a person that argued against secession while he was a U.S. Senator, and merely went along with his state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His state forced him to be the chief executive of the Confederate States of America?
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> The COnfederates were lucky the U.S. had already seceded from British. If they had tried to secede from Britain and failed everyone of their leaders would have been drawn and quartered in public.
Click to expand...


The federal government never went after Davis or Lee or the surviving Confederates. As a matter of fact the government named a few military bases after Confederates. You lock-step radical lefties might base your hatred on 19th century concepts but you need to know that it limits your intellectual comprehension.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The feds held Davis in prison for two years before finally letting him go.

One Confederate prison camp commander was excuted for atrocities.

whitehall, the limited intellectual comprehension is demonstrated here by you.


----------



## whitehall

JakeStarkey said:


> The feds held Davis in prison for two years before finally letting him go.
> 
> One Confederate prison camp commander was excuted for atrocities.
> 
> whitehall, the limited intellectual comprehension is demonstrated here by you.



You made my case jake. Lack of intellectual comprehension is your problem. The federal government released Davis and later on Confederate general Robert E Lee became the distinguished dean of Washington College renamed later to Washington and Lee. W & L is still a major law school.


----------



## freedombecki

*Who was the worst traitor in U.S. History?

*A traitor to his country is one who works against all other people in the country for an amount of money or social prestige.

That said, a patriot to his country is one who works for all other people in the country for a higher cause: their good.

The worst traitor is the one whose deeds result in a no-win outcome for the majority of the people in the country.

And the best patriot is the one whose deeds result in a win-win for the people in the country.

I'm not sure who will take the blame for being the worst traitor in U. S. History a thousand years from today.

It could be the voter gets that distinction.


----------



## whitehall

Drop the emotion and the nagging 19th century baggage and consider the real impact on America. Oswald has to be #1.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You said there were no punishments.  I showed you were wrong.  You wrote, "The federal government never went after Davis or Lee or the surviving Confederates."

Yes, I made my case and you fail. 

Really, don't speak in absolutes.  That's bigreb nonsense.



whitehall said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The feds held Davis in prison for two years before finally letting him go.
> 
> One Confederate prison camp commander was excuted for atrocities.
> 
> whitehall, the limited intellectual comprehension is demonstrated here by you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You made my case jake. Lack of intellectual comprehension is your problem. The federal government released Davis and later on Confederate general Robert E Lee became the distinguished dean of Washington College renamed later to Washington and Lee. W & L is still a major law school.
Click to expand...


----------



## whitehall

JakeStarkey said:


> You said there were no punishments.  I showed you were wrong.  You wrote, "The federal government never went after Davis or Lee or the surviving Confederates."
> 
> Yes, I made my case and you fail.
> 
> Really, don't speak in absolutes.  That's bigreb nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The feds held Davis in prison for two years before finally letting him go.
> 
> One Confederate prison camp commander was excuted for atrocities.
> 
> whitehall, the limited intellectual comprehension is demonstrated here by you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You made my case jake. Lack of intellectual comprehension is your problem. The federal government released Davis and later on Confederate general Robert E Lee became the distinguished dean of Washington College renamed later to Washington and Lee. W & L is still a major law school.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Do yourself a favor and don't pursue a career in law Jake. Holding Davis is not the same as a conviction. The wild claims of treason that the uninformed left wants to dwell on did not happen after the Civil War. Let it go and let go of your hatred and consider 20th century traitors.


----------



## thanatos144

whitehall said:


> Drop the emotion and the nagging 19th century baggage and consider the real impact on America. Oswald has to be #1.



For what? Killing a a racist president?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yes, incarcerating people in prison for two years and executing others are punishments.

Are you this juvenile that you can't admit the absolutism of your statement led you into a corner?



whitehall said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said there were no punishments.  I showed you were wrong.  You wrote, "The federal government never went after Davis or Lee or the surviving Confederates."
> 
> Yes, I made my case and you fail.
> 
> Really, don't speak in absolutes.  That's bigreb nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You made my case jake. Lack of intellectual comprehension is your problem. The federal government released Davis and later on Confederate general Robert E Lee became the distinguished dean of Washington College renamed later to Washington and Lee. W & L is still a major law school.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do yourself a favor and don't pursue a career in law Jake. Holding Davis is not the same as a conviction. The wild claims of treason that the uninformed left wants to dwell on did not happen after the Civil War. Let it go and let go of your hatred and consider 20th century traitors.
Click to expand...


----------



## Uncensored2008

freedombecki said:


> *Who was the worst traitor in U.S. History?
> 
> *A traitor to his country is one who works against all other people in the country for an amount of money or social prestige.
> 
> That said, a patriot to his country is one who works for all other people in the country for a higher cause: their good.
> 
> The worst traitor is the one whose deeds result in a no-win outcome for the majority of the people in the country.
> 
> And the best patriot is the one whose deeds result in a win-win for the people in the country.
> 
> I'm not sure who will take the blame for being the worst traitor in U. S. History a thousand years from today.
> 
> It could be the voter gets that distinction.



In a thousand years, I wonder how much detail will be remembered about the United States? "There once was a nation founded on self-rule, it collapsed in the early 21st century."


----------



## Uncensored2008

whitehall said:


> Drop the emotion and the nagging 19th century baggage and consider the real impact on America. Oswald has to be #1.



I understand the emotionalism, but Oswald had nowhere near the impact that the Rosenbergs or even Walker had on the nation. Oswald may have pulled the nation together, due to the outrage over assassinating a president.

The only thing worse than assassinating a president would be if sitting president ordered the murder of a U.S. citizen, without arrest, trial, or tribunal.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Fortunately, Uncensored, we have no record that such has happened.  Yet.


----------



## PretentiousGuy

For me it is a two way tie.

A) Joseph fucking McCarthy for his witch hunts ruined the lives of many Americans.

B) Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. for undermining the first amendment by upholding the conviction of a man who was jailed for handing out leaflets.


----------



## Arthur

Richard Nixon​


----------



## JakeStarkey

The American South that supported the Civil War.

They all should have been sold as slaves to the Turks to work in the mines.


----------



## thanatos144

PretentiousGuy said:


> For me it is a two way tie.
> 
> A) Joseph fucking McCarthy for his witch hunts ruined the lives of many Americans.
> 
> B) Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. for undermining the first amendment by upholding the conviction of a man who was jailed for handing out leaflets.



And yet Macarthy was right so what witch hunt was there?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

PretentiousGuy said:


> For me it is a two way tie.
> 
> A) Joseph fucking McCarthy for his witch hunts ruined the lives of many Americans.
> 
> B) Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. for undermining the first amendment by upholding the conviction of a man who was jailed for handing out leaflets.



Can you name one person whose life was ruined by McCarthy?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

I give it to the father and son team of George HW and Duyba.

HW likely orchestrated the Reagan assassination because collapsing the USSR would unwind the neat arrangement the CIA had with the KGB. Reagan was a true believer in freedom and America, and for that he was to die. When Walker because President he did all he could to keep the USSR in tact as an oligarchy

Dubya is probably the greatest traitor because he had a real once in a 100-year chance to unwind the Progressive Jihad on American society and instead he strengthened the stranglehold the Marxist have on our educational system, gave us a new entitlement, Patriot Act and was aware the KGB wing of the CIA had perpetrated 911


----------



## JakeStarkey

Already answered and rejected many times, Frank.  You have massive fail on this.



CrusaderFrank said:


> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> For me it is a two way tie.
> 
> A) Joseph fucking McCarthy for his witch hunts ruined the lives of many Americans.
> 
> B) Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. for undermining the first amendment by upholding the conviction of a man who was jailed for handing out leaflets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name one person whose life was ruined by McCarthy?
Click to expand...


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> Already answered and rejected many times, Frank.  You have massive fail on this.
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> For me it is a two way tie.
> 
> A) Joseph fucking McCarthy for his witch hunts ruined the lives of many Americans.
> 
> B) Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. for undermining the first amendment by upholding the conviction of a man who was jailed for handing out leaflets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name one person whose life was ruined by McCarthy?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Jake, you got spanked like a redheaded step kid in my McCarthy thread. It seems you either didn't learn a thing, or are still going for the Goebbels Big Lie; there's no third option

http://www.usmessageboard.com/revie...-of-senator-joe-mccarthy-m-stanton-evans.html


----------



## Unkotare

CrusaderFrank said:


> HW likely orchestrated the Reagan assassination because collapsing the USSR would unwind the neat arrangement the CIA had with the KGB. Reagan was a true believer in freedom and America, and for that he was to die. When Walker because President he did all he could to keep the USSR in tact as an oligarchy


----------



## Unkotare

JakeStarkey said:


> The American South that supported the Civil War.
> 
> They all should have been sold as slaves to the Turks to work in the mines.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Poor little Unkatroll.

Yup, CF's McCarthy thread got him busted.

And the Southerners who were responsible for almost 700,000 dead soldiers and civilians are the worst traitors in our history.  They should have been sold into slavery to Africa.

Let's watch Unkatroll begin his Rainman dance, denying and crying that life is unfair to him.

Sad little Unkatroll.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> Already answered and rejected many times, Frank.  You have massive fail on this.
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> For me it is a two way tie.
> 
> A) Joseph fucking McCarthy for his witch hunts ruined the lives of many Americans.
> 
> B) Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. for undermining the first amendment by upholding the conviction of a man who was jailed for handing out leaflets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name one person whose life was ruined by McCarthy?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Earned 2 Goebbels for that Lie, Jake


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> Fortunately, Uncensored, we have no record that such has happened.  Yet.



Gee you're dumb!

Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen - Salon.com


----------



## PretentiousGuy

Uncensored2008 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately, Uncensored, we have no record that such has happened.  Yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee you're dumb!
> 
> Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen - Salon.com
Click to expand...


I hate to say it but uncensored is right on this one, when it comes to the war and civil liberties Obama is as bad if not worse than Bush.


----------



## uscitizen

Ronald Reagan?  He dealt arms to an avowed enemy of the USA.


----------



## gipper

Harry Dexter White has to be considered one of the worst.  Sadly few Americans know of him.



> *Soviet Spy Under FDR Likely Set Off Pearl Harbor
> HARRY WHITE SUBTLY INFLUENCED POLICY ON JAPAN*
> The &#8220;infamy&#8221; of December 7, 1941, is deeper than most Americans have ever imagined. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was almost certainly the result of a Soviet plot&#8212;&#8220;Operation Snow&#8221;&#8212;carried out by Harry Dexter White, a figure of enormous influence in the Roosevelt administration and a known Soviet spy.
> 
> Instead of compromising, the United States demanded that Japan withdraw from China immediately, neutralize Manchuria, and sell three-quarters of its military and naval production to the U.S.
> 
> Perceiving the demand as an insult and a threat, the skittish Japanese government concluded that war was inevitable. They moved ahead with a contingency plan for an attack on the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor and the Philippines, and Stalin, thanks to Harry Dexter White, were spared a war on his eastern flank.
> 
> White continued to shape U.S. policy to Soviet advantage into the postwar era until the revelations of the communist defectors Whittaker Chambers and Elizabeth Bentley precipitated his spectacular fall.
> 
> He died in 1948, quite possibly a suicide, three days after a disastrous appearance before the House Un-American Activities Committee. He was identified as a traitor by the FBI in 1950, but the full story of his role in provoking Pearl Harbor was unknown until Vitalii Pavlov, his Soviet handler and ultimately a lieutenant general in the KGB, published his memoirs in 1996. Pavlov credited White with saving the Soviet Union.
> Pearl Harbor <i>2.0</i> | TIME.com


----------



## JakeStarkey

If the President authorizes such in time of war, bubs, per Constitution, it is legal.



PretentiousGuy said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately, Uncensored, we have no record that such has happened.  Yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee you're dumb!
> 
> Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen - Salon.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hate to say it but uncensored is right on this one, when it comes to the war and civil liberties Obama is as bad if not worse than Bush.
Click to expand...


----------



## PretentiousGuy

JakeStarkey said:


> If the President authorizes such in time of war, bubs, per Constitution, it is legal.
> 
> 
> 
> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee you're dumb!
> 
> Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen - Salon.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to say it but uncensored is right on this one, when it comes to the war and civil liberties Obama is as bad if not worse than Bush.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


We haven't declared war since WWII.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Authorization of Force resolutions by Congress is Constitutional in terms of declarations.

Look it up.

Duck, dood!  There's a drone over you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Dr Grump

Thunderbird said:


> Many possibilities: Aldrich Ames, the Rosenbergs, or Benedict Arnold himself.  My nominee is Harry Dexter White.
> 
> quote: 1. White was the real author of the Morgenthau plan to "turn Germany into a potato field," which when leaked, united non-Nazis with Nazis, stiffened resistance, and prolonged the war.
> 2. White used his position in the Treasury Department to develop a hostile U.S. policy toward Japan. The reason was to distract Japan from their plans to attack the Soviet Union and draw the U.S. into the war as an ally with the Soviet Union.
> 3. White was the author of an extreme ultimatum that Japan could not comply with in the days just prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
> 4. White delayed financial support mandated by law to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist Chinese government causing the triumph of Mao Tse-Tung's Communist Chinese government.
> 5. White was instrumental in handing over the Allied Military mark printing plates to the Soviets. This caused a $250,000,000 deficit in the occupational government budget paid out by the U.S. Treasury. This in effect amounted to the US taxpayer paying the salaries of Soviet occupation troops at a time when US/Soviet relations were deteriorating precisely because of the presence and behavior of Soviet occupation forces in Eastern Europe.
> 
> LINK



Benedict Arnold was not a traitor....he just flip flopped....


----------



## whitehall

Uncensored2008 said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drop the emotion and the nagging 19th century baggage and consider the real impact on America. Oswald has to be #1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the emotionalism, but Oswald had nowhere near the impact that the Rosenbergs or even Walker had on the nation. Oswald may have pulled the nation together, due to the outrage over assassinating a president.
> 
> The only thing worse than assassinating a president would be if sitting president ordered the murder of a U.S. citizen, without arrest, trial, or tribunal.
Click to expand...


You lost the concept of treason. Oswald was working in the U2 spy program when he defected. While he was in his new paradise in Russia the U2 plane was shot down. Circumstantial evidence might indicate that that he bought his way into the Kremlin with espionage data. The impact to the United States is the determining factor in picking the most notorious spy in history. The Rosenburgs may or may not have been the only ones who offered Atomic Bomb secrets to the Russians and at any rate the result was an escalation of the Cold War but not much else. CIA spies and FBI spies caused the deaths of innocent people in the intelligence field but not much more. Oswald single handedly stopped the United States in it's tracks. Foreign policy was disrupted and the balance of the US government was altered. Would Vietnam have happened if LBJ didn't take over? It's an important consideration.


----------



## Dr Grump

Uncensored2008 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson Davis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or Robert E Lee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and marty are poster children for the utter failure of the American educational system.
Click to expand...


I would say that the debate Marty and KK are having would make a lie of your OPINION on the matter.

You, on the other hand, are nothing but a troll who adds nothing to the debate...


----------



## Dr Grump

CrusaderFrank said:


> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> For me it is a two way tie.
> 
> A) Joseph fucking McCarthy for his witch hunts ruined the lives of many Americans.
> 
> B) Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. for undermining the first amendment by upholding the conviction of a man who was jailed for handing out leaflets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name one person whose life was ruined by McCarthy?
Click to expand...


Take your pick..

Hollywood blacklist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## PretentiousGuy

JakeStarkey said:


> Authorization of Force resolutions by Congress is Constitutional in terms of declarations.
> 
> Look it up.
> 
> Duck, dood!  There's a drone over you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Weren't you just saying this didn't

Fortunately I do not have to worry about drones I am white and in America.. Anything in the middle east seems to be fair game though women, children, other civilians, and american citizens. 

As for the constitutionality of it... Just point me to the article where it permits the president to commit war crimes and assassinate citizens. I'm waiting.


----------



## uscitizen

Dr Grump said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many possibilities: Aldrich Ames, the Rosenbergs, or Benedict Arnold himself.  My nominee is Harry Dexter White.
> 
> quote: 1. White was the real author of the Morgenthau plan to "turn Germany into a potato field," which when leaked, united non-Nazis with Nazis, stiffened resistance, and prolonged the war.
> 2. White used his position in the Treasury Department to develop a hostile U.S. policy toward Japan. The reason was to distract Japan from their plans to attack the Soviet Union and draw the U.S. into the war as an ally with the Soviet Union.
> 3. White was the author of an extreme ultimatum that Japan could not comply with in the days just prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
> 4. White delayed financial support mandated by law to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist Chinese government causing the triumph of Mao Tse-Tung's Communist Chinese government.
> 5. White was instrumental in handing over the Allied Military mark printing plates to the Soviets. This caused a $250,000,000 deficit in the occupational government budget paid out by the U.S. Treasury. This in effect amounted to the US taxpayer paying the salaries of Soviet occupation troops at a time when US/Soviet relations were deteriorating precisely because of the presence and behavior of Soviet occupation forces in Eastern Europe.
> 
> LINK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Benedict Arnold was not a traitor....he just flip flopped....
Click to expand...


He was conservative, not progressive like the founding fathers.


----------



## uscitizen

Dr Grump said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> For me it is a two way tie.
> 
> A) Joseph fucking McCarthy for his witch hunts ruined the lives of many Americans.
> 
> B) Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. for undermining the first amendment by upholding the conviction of a man who was jailed for handing out leaflets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name one person whose life was ruined by McCarthy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take your pick..
> 
> Hollywood blacklist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

and the commies were defended by Reagan.


----------



## whitehall

Dr Grump said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> For me it is a two way tie.
> 
> A) Joseph fucking McCarthy for his witch hunts ruined the lives of many Americans.
> 
> B) Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. for undermining the first amendment by upholding the conviction of a man who was jailed for handing out leaflets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name one person whose life was ruined by McCarthy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take your pick..
> 
> Hollywood blacklist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Doc, you have to be a freaking idiot to blame a republican senator for the alleged "blacklist". First of all it was the democrat majority in congress that established HUAC "house un-American activities committee" that held the hearings that resulted in the blacklisting. The federal government had no power to blacklist citizens. Hollywood thought it might loose a few bucks because of anti-communist rhetoric so they blacklisted their own people and (wouldn't you know it?) blamed it all on a republican. Treason? Your ignorance and hatred might be getting in the way of logic.


----------



## PretentiousGuy

uscitizen said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name one person whose life was ruined by McCarthy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take your pick..
> 
> Hollywood blacklist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and the commies were defended by Reagan.
Click to expand...


Last I checked it wasn't a crime to be a communist, even if they were actually communists. However I find it more likely that their real crime was pissing off McCarthy.

For Christ sake Pete Seeger? Charlie Chaplin?


----------



## Dr Grump

whitehall said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name one person whose life was ruined by McCarthy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take your pick..
> 
> Hollywood blacklist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doc, you have to be a freaking idiot to blame a republican senator for the alleged "blacklist". First of all it was the democrat majority in congress that established HUAC "house un-American activities committee" that held the hearings that resulted in the blacklisting. The federal government had no power to blacklist citizens. Hollywood thought it might loose a few bucks because of anti-communist rhetoric so they blacklisted their own people and (wouldn't you know it?) blamed it all on a republican. Treason? Your ignorance and hatred might be getting in the way of logic.
Click to expand...


He took the ball and ran with it. Simple. He went for the populist angle and thought he was the King Kahuna.

I don't care if Truman himself initially supported the HUAC.

McCain Feingold is down to McCain Feingold. Nobody cares or remembers who the other politicians involved were, they own it.

McCarthy owns the fallout from the HUAC...lock, stock and two smoking barrels. And you know what is even more interesting? At the time, he revelled in it - he GLADLY owned it. It is only revisionist righties who see it otherwise.

Same lot who think Lincoln and FDR were crap presidents. Load of horseshit...


----------



## whitehall

PretentiousGuy said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take your pick..
> 
> Hollywood blacklist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> and the commies were defended by Reagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Last I checked it wasn't a crime to be a communist, even if they were actually communists. However I find it more likely that their real crime was pissing off McCarthy.
> 
> For Christ sake Pete Seeger? Charlie Chaplin?
Click to expand...


It wasn't a crime to be a baseball player or even a baseball player who allegedly used performance enhancing drugs but the democrat majority in the senate did the same thing to baseball players in 2010 as the democrat majority did to communists in 1950. The difference of course is in the media perception and the real threat to democracy by the communist party.


----------



## PretentiousGuy

whitehall said:


> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> and the commies were defended by Reagan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last I checked it wasn't a crime to be a communist, even if they were actually communists. However I find it more likely that their real crime was pissing off McCarthy.
> 
> For Christ sake Pete Seeger? Charlie Chaplin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't a crime to be a baseball player or even a baseball player who allegedly used performance enhancing drugs but the democrat majority in the senate did the same thing to baseball players in 2010 as the democrat majority did to communists in 1950. The difference of course is in the media perception and the real threat to democracy by the communist party.
Click to expand...


You just seriously compared baseball to the red scare... Seriously think about what you just said.


----------



## uscitizen

Baseball is full of commies!


----------



## JakeStarkey

The Congress and SCOTUS decide what is legal, not you, so if you don't like it, who cares.    Simple: don't as an American act as a noncombatant enemy of the USA overseas, where our LEO cannot reach you but the military can.

US





PretentiousGuy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Authorization of Force resolutions by Congress is Constitutional in terms of declarations.
> 
> Look it up.
> 
> Duck, dood!  There's a drone over you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weren't you just saying this didn't
> 
> Fortunately I do not have to worry about drones I am white and in America.. Anything in the middle east seems to be fair game though women, children, other civilians, and american citizens.
> 
> As for the constitutionality of it... Just point me to the article where it permits the president to commit war crimes and assassinate citizens. I'm waiting.
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Many of the Founders were progressive conservatives, for rightwing statist action in rebellion but not in government.  Benedict Arnold was an opportunist, only committed to his own advancement through whatever means left or right would work for him.



uscitizen said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many possibilities: Aldrich Ames, the Rosenbergs, or Benedict Arnold himself.  My nominee is Harry Dexter White.
> 
> quote: 1. White was the real author of the Morgenthau plan to "turn Germany into a potato field," which when leaked, united non-Nazis with Nazis, stiffened resistance, and prolonged the war.
> 2. White used his position in the Treasury Department to develop a hostile U.S. policy toward Japan. The reason was to distract Japan from their plans to attack the Soviet Union and draw the U.S. into the war as an ally with the Soviet Union.
> 3. White was the author of an extreme ultimatum that Japan could not comply with in the days just prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
> 4. White delayed financial support mandated by law to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist Chinese government causing the triumph of Mao Tse-Tung's Communist Chinese government.
> 5. White was instrumental in handing over the Allied Military mark printing plates to the Soviets. This caused a $250,000,000 deficit in the occupational government budget paid out by the U.S. Treasury. This in effect amounted to the US taxpayer paying the salaries of Soviet occupation troops at a time when US/Soviet relations were deteriorating precisely because of the presence and behavior of Soviet occupation forces in Eastern Europe.
> 
> LINK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Benedict Arnold was not a traitor....he just flip flopped....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was conservative, not progressive like the founding fathers.
Click to expand...


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> If the President authorizes such in time of war, bubs, per Constitution, it is legal.



Jake, you have an IQ of less than 40, but this is an astoundingly stupid claim even for you.

{Article [V.]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. }

You stupid, stupid fuck.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PretentiousGuy said:


> We haven't declared war since WWII.



Even if we had, it would be irrelevant.


No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, *when in actual service* in time of War or public danger;

Anwar al-Awlaki was not in service to the United States and thus not subject to military justice.

This was simple murder.


----------



## PretentiousGuy

JakeStarkey said:


> The Congress and SCOTUS decide what is legal, not you, so if you don't like it, who cares.    Simple: don't as an American act as a noncombatant enemy of the USA overseas, where our LEO cannot reach you but the military can.
> 
> US
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Authorization of Force resolutions by Congress is Constitutional in terms of declarations.
> 
> Look it up.
> 
> Duck, dood!  There's a drone over you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weren't you just saying this didn't
> 
> Fortunately I do not have to worry about drones I am white and in America.. Anything in the middle east seems to be fair game though women, children, other civilians, and american citizens.
> 
> As for the constitutionality of it... Just point me to the article where it permits the president to commit war crimes and assassinate citizens. I'm waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Appeal to authority. Congress and the scotus have been known to make mistakes and overstep the realm of their legal authority. So show me where the law gives them the ability to do these things.


----------



## PretentiousGuy

Uncensored2008 said:


> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We haven't declared war since WWII.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if we had, it would be irrelevant.
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, *when in actual service* in time of War or public danger;
> 
> Anwar al-Awlaki was not in service to the United States and thus not subject to military justice.
> 
> This was simple murder.
Click to expand...


I dont disagree I was referencing the writ of habeas corpus which the president does have the right to suspend in times of war and rebellion.


----------



## longknife

Barry Hussein Obama!


----------



## JakeStarkey

An appeal to legitimate authority is never logical fallacy.

Appeal to self authority is fallacious.

QUOTE=PretentiousGuy;6479015]





JakeStarkey said:


> The Congress and SCOTUS decide what is legal, not you, so if you don't like it, who cares.    Simple: don't as an American act as a noncombatant enemy of the USA overseas, where our LEO cannot reach you but the military can.
> 
> US
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weren't you just saying this didn't
> 
> Fortunately I do not have to worry about drones I am white and in America.. Anything in the middle east seems to be fair game though women, children, other civilians, and american citizens.
> 
> As for the constitutionality of it... Just point me to the article where it permits the president to commit war crimes and assassinate citizens. I'm waiting.
Click to expand...


Appeal to authority. Congress and the scotus have been known to make mistakes and overstep the realm of their legal authority. So show me where the law gives them the ability to do these things.[/QUOTE]


----------



## whitehall

Don't even think of trying to indict President Bush for Iraq when congress had access to the same information and voted to authorize Troops for the mission. You could make a case that senate majority leader Harry Reid might have engaged in treasonous conduct when for some reason he felt compelled to impact the morale of the Troops and and the Country when he went on the air and said "the war in Iraq is lost" just before the Troop Surge.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> An appeal to legitimate authority is never logical fallacy.
> 
> Appeal to self authority is fallacious.



Holy shit but you're stupid, Jakematters.

You often shit yourself as they try to dress you, doncha?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Criminal negligence by the executive, on which the legislative depended, could be charged against Bush, but not treason.



whitehall said:


> Don't even think of trying to indict President Bush for Iraq when congress had access to the same information and voted to authorize Troops for the mission. You could make a case that senate majority leader Harry Reid might have engaged in treasonous conduct when for some reason he felt compelled to impact the morale of the Troops and and the Country when he went on the air and said "the war in Iraq is lost" just before the Troop Surge.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You have not a clue, little one.  Run along.



Uncensored2008 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> An appeal to legitimate authority is never logical fallacy.
> 
> Appeal to self authority is fallacious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holy shit but you're stupid, Jakematters.
> 
> You often shit yourself as they try to dress you, doncha?
Click to expand...


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> You have not a clue, little one.  Run along.



You've never had a logic class, Jakematters. They don't teach logic in third grade.

Fallacy: Appeal to Authority

They DID try to teach you to feed yourself with a spoon. It didn't turn out well...


----------



## JakeStarkey

When the authority has the facts that support the claim, then there the claim of "appeal to authority" is a fallacy.

Did you take philosophy in HS or college, Uncensored?



Uncensored2008 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have not a clue, little one.  Run along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've never had a logic class, Jakematters. They don't teach logic in third grade.
> 
> Fallacy: Appeal to Authority
> 
> They DID try to teach you to feed yourself with a spoon. It didn't turn out well...
Click to expand...


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> When the authority has the facts that support the claim, then there the claim of "appeal to authority" is a fallacy.
> 
> Did you take philosophy in HS or college, Uncensored?



The concept that one ignores statute and lets the SCOTUS dictate what is law is an appeal to authority fallacy - moron.


----------



## JakeStarkey

It is not a fallacy, son.  SCOTUS determines constitutionality of a law.  That is fact, not false.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dr Grump said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> For me it is a two way tie.
> 
> A) Joseph fucking McCarthy for his witch hunts ruined the lives of many Americans.
> 
> B) Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. for undermining the first amendment by upholding the conviction of a man who was jailed for handing out leaflets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name one person whose life was ruined by McCarthy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take your pick..
> 
> Hollywood blacklist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


You might want to read the articles you link to once in a while.

"The first systematic Hollywood blacklist was instituted on November 25, 1947..."

Guess when Joe McCarthy made his first speech on Communist infiltration of the government?

Take a guess. 

Joe McCarthy had NOTHING to do with Hollywood Blacklisting

Nothing!

His targets were in the White House and State Department


----------



## CrusaderFrank

PretentiousGuy said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take your pick..
> 
> Hollywood blacklist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> and the commies were defended by Reagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Last I checked it wasn't a crime to be a communist, even if they were actually communists. However I find it more likely that their real crime was pissing off McCarthy.
> 
> For Christ sake Pete Seeger? Charlie Chaplin?
Click to expand...


You should get a fucking clue first. If you can't buy one, rent one for the day

McCarthy had NOTHING to do with Pete Seeger and Charlie Chaplin

NOTHING

I will assume you still labor under the intentional misinformation campaign on McCarthy that his HUAC started a Red Scare and got Zero Mostel Blacklisted. I too was guilty of accepting the lies at face value.

Start here

http://www.usmessageboard.com/revie...-of-senator-joe-mccarthy-m-stanton-evans.html


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> It is not a fallacy, son.  SCOTUS determines constitutionality of a law.  That is fact, not false.



That isn't the same as determining what is law..

I think at times I'm actually insulting Truthmatters, Jakematters....


----------



## JakeStarkey

Uncensored is being silly.  Nada new there.


----------



## Uncensored2008

^^^^^ Retard.

True story


----------



## Unkotare

Uncensored2008 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have not a clue, little one.  Run along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've never had a logic class, Jakematters. They don't teach logic in third grade.
> 
> Fallacy: Appeal to Authority
> 
> They DID try to teach you to feed yourself with a spoon. It didn't turn out well...
Click to expand...



You didn't really expect Fakey to understand anything about logic, did you?


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are a retard?  At times, yes, you are.  You fail again, so you get all weepy.  Tru dat.


----------



## Unkotare

JakeStarkey said:


> Did you take philosophy in HS or college, Uncensored?








Did Fakey, of all people, really ask this question?



That's hilarious.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I see Unko is going into the wacka wack rainman routine.

Take your pills, dude, and chill.  Your among your betters.  Behave, loony boy.


----------



## AngelGrl

Barack Hussein Obama, or is it Soetoro?      He grew up as a Muslim in Indonesia and was indoctrinated into Communism by Frank Davis and Bill Ayers and his wife. He spent twenty years in a black liberation "church" where the irreverent Jeremiah Wright blamed America and "whities" for all the world's ills.     He rewrote the Army manual to tell our soldiers to not criticize pedophilia or any other custom of Islam, as stated on Atlas Shrugs.


----------



## PretentiousGuy

JakeStarkey said:


> An appeal to legitimate authority is never logical fallacy.
> 
> Appeal to self authority is fallacious.


*facepalm* Im sorry but this really burnt out my patience.

I suspect you are being dishonest here.

There is no "_legitimate_" authority; whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean. Short of declaring the governing bodies infallible there is no way you can make a logically sound argument by appealing to authority.


----------



## JakeStarkey

AngelGirl, or is it DevilGirl? She grew up a Westboro Cult Baptist in mid-America and was indoctrinated into racist and religious hatred for all of her young life.  She is  a followr of those "leaders" who blame multiculturalism and "uppitty"  blacks for America's ills.  She opposes all the American freedoms of conscience, belief, and right of choice.  She would boink John Gault if he were real.



AngelGrl said:


> Barack Hussein Obama, or is it Soetoro?      He grew up as a Muslim in Indonesia and was indoctrinated into Communism by Frank Davis and Bill Ayers and his wife. He spent twenty years in a black liberation "church" where the irreverent Jeremiah Wright blamed America and "whities" for all the world's ills.     He rewrote the Army manual to tell our soldiers to not criticize pedophilia or any other custom of Islam, as stated on Atlas Shrugs.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I suspect you don't have a clue, PG.  "An Appeal to Authority" means relying on someone else, especially when one has nothing else to argue.

We the People are subject to the Constitution and SCOTUS is the arbiter of what it means.

Take your insular and parochial anti-American hatred and stuff down your throat.



PretentiousGuy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> An appeal to legitimate authority is never logical fallacy.
> 
> Appeal to self authority is fallacious.
> 
> 
> 
> *facepalm* Im sorry but this really burnt out my patience.
> 
> I suspect you are being dishonest here.
> 
> There is no "_legitimate_" authority; whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean. Short of declaring the governing bodies infallible there is no way you can make a logically sound argument by appealing to authority.
Click to expand...


----------



## PretentiousGuy

JakeStarkey said:


> I suspect you don't have a clue, PG.  "An Appeal to Authority" means relying on someone else, especially when one has nothing else to argue.
> 
> We the People are subject to the Constitution and SCOTUS is the arbiter of what it means.
> 
> Take your insular and parochial anti-American hatred and stuff down your throat.
> 
> 
> 
> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> An appeal to legitimate authority is never logical fallacy.
> 
> Appeal to self authority is fallacious.
> 
> 
> 
> *facepalm* Im sorry but this really burnt out my patience.
> 
> I suspect you are being dishonest here.
> 
> There is no "_legitimate_" authority; whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean. Short of declaring the governing bodies infallible there is no way you can make a logically sound argument by appealing to authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Not accepting authoritative claims from the governing bodies as gospel= anti-american hate... 
Please don't report me to HUAC. 

Take your nationalistic romanticism and.... well get rid of it really. You can't very well shove it up your ass as your head already occupies that cavity.

You really dont have anything to argue, here. I asked for the constitutional basis for granting these authorities. You have provided nothing of the sort. 

I know this is going to come as a shock to you but the government can be wrong Jake.


----------



## JakeStarkey

"Pretentious" is well applied to you because your dishonesty has little to offer.  Your attitude is hateful to America.  When SCOTUS opines, arguments are made to that authority.  You just don't think well.

Those who have trouble with legitimate governmental authority granted by We the People are anti-American and deserve no respect for such thinking.

Refer to the SCOTUS opinions and Congressional legislation for Constitutional authority.  That you do not like them is immaterial.  You have nothing to argue here so continue to whine like a child.


----------



## Unkotare

I can just imagine Fakey there trying to talk about Philosophy and logic and, well anything really. 


Btw, the answer to the OP is still FDR.


----------



## PretentiousGuy

JakeStarkey said:


> 1)"Pretentious" is well applied to you because your dishonesty has little to offer.  Your attitude is hateful to America.  When SCOTUS opines, arguments are made to that authority.  You just don't think well.
> 
> 2)Those who have trouble with legitimate governmental authority granted by We the People are anti-American and deserve no respect for such thinking.
> 
> 3)Refer to the SCOTUS opinions and Congressional legislation for Constitutional authority.  That you do not like them is immaterial.  You have nothing to argue here so continue to whine like a child.



1)So my claim that SCOTUS makes mistake is unamerican?  You just really reduced any dissent of the American government as unamerican; this is a really fucking pathetic ad hominem.

2) All of this just to avoid backing up a claim? Whatever legal authority an individual may have is very much separate from from the facts of the matter. 

Ability to enforce =/= legitimate, legal, ethical etc.

3) Not liking them? Really? Im not sure illegal warfare, assassinations of american citizens, and war crimes count as dislike. In fact they are very specific charges. Initially you denied that these thing transpired. When you were presented with evidence that they in fact do you moved the goal posts.


----------



## freedomintel

The Rosenbaums maybe?


----------



## JakeStarkey

PretentiousGuy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)"Pretentious" is well applied to you because your dishonesty has little to offer.  Your attitude is hateful to America.  When SCOTUS opines, arguments are made to that authority.  You just don't think well.
> 
> 2)Those who have trouble with legitimate governmental authority granted by We the People are anti-American and deserve no respect for such thinking.
> 
> 3)Refer to the SCOTUS opinions and Congressional legislation for Constitutional authority.  That you do not like them is immaterial.  You have nothing to argue here so continue to whine like a child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)So my claim that SCOTUS makes mistake is unamerican?  You just really reduced any dissent of the American government as unamerican; this is a really fucking pathetic ad hominem.
> 
> 2) All of this just to avoid backing up a claim? Whatever legal authority an individual may have is very much separate from from the facts of the matter.
> 
> Ability to enforce =/= legitimate, legal, ethical etc.
> 
> 3) Not liking them? Really? Im not sure illegal warfare, assassinations of american citizens, and war crimes count as dislike. In fact they are very specific charges. Initially you denied that these thing transpired. When you were presented with evidence that they in fact do you moved the goal posts.
Click to expand...


(1) You did far more than that, you unAmerican scum.

(2) You try to make legitimate constitutional authority illegitimate by building a straw man.  In fact, obozo, We the People give the authority to the government to make laws and to the courts to interpret those laws.  You fail.

(3) We understand you are unhappy.  Better get to work with your legislators.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> I suspect you don't have a clue, PG.  "An Appeal to Authority" means relying on someone else, especially when one has nothing else to argue.



Actually, that isn't what it means, stupid.

Appeal to Authority.

Assertion: Plumbs are orange
Challenge: No, most plumbs are purple
Fallacy: Dr. Smith is a prominent horticulturalist.

So what we have stupid, is support of a claim not by logic or fact, but merely based on the implied authority of a third party. 

Do you grasp this, stupid?



> We the People are subject to the Constitution and SCOTUS is the arbiter of what it means.



_BUT THE OPINION which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch._  Thomas Jefferson: Letter to Mrs. John Adams, Nov. 1804 

(I realize that you confine your reading to the works of Stalin and Pol Pot.)



> Take your insular and parochial anti-American hatred and stuff down your throat.



Go fuck yourself, Jakematters.

If we want your opinion, we'll log on to ThinkProgress.


----------



## Uncensored2008

freedomintel said:


> The Rosenbaums maybe?



Who are the Rosenbaums?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Uncensored, when you are done pleasuring your male customers, quit your ineffectual whining here.

Try working your magic on the male legislators to the far right.,


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> Uncensored, when you are done pleasuring your male customers, quit your ineffectual whining here.
> 
> Try working your magic on the male legislators to the far right.,



Fuck off, Jakematters. If we want your opinion, we'll log on to ThinkProgress.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Uncensored wanks right along.  Back to your customers.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> Uncensored wanks right along.  Back to your customers.



Jakematters, you're del level fucktarded.


----------



## Sunni Man

Bobby Garwood

Bobby Garwood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## PretentiousGuy

JakeStarkey said:


> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)"Pretentious" is well applied to you because your dishonesty has little to offer.  Your attitude is hateful to America.  When SCOTUS opines, arguments are made to that authority.  You just don't think well.
> 
> 2)Those who have trouble with legitimate governmental authority granted by We the People are anti-American and deserve no respect for such thinking.
> 
> 3)Refer to the SCOTUS opinions and Congressional legislation for Constitutional authority.  That you do not like them is immaterial.  You have nothing to argue here so continue to whine like a child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)So my claim that SCOTUS makes mistake is unamerican?  You just really reduced any dissent of the American government as unamerican; this is a really fucking pathetic ad hominem.
> 
> 2) All of this just to avoid backing up a claim? Whatever legal authority an individual may have is very much separate from from the facts of the matter.
> 
> Ability to enforce =/= legitimate, legal, ethical etc.
> 
> 3) Not liking them? Really? Im not sure illegal warfare, assassinations of american citizens, and war crimes count as dislike. In fact they are very specific charges. Initially you denied that these thing transpired. When you were presented with evidence that they in fact do you moved the goal posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (1) You did far more than that, you unAmerican scum.
> 
> (2) You try to make legitimate constitutional authority illegitimate by building a straw man.  In fact, obozo, We the People give the authority to the government to make laws and to the courts to interpret those laws.  You fail.
> 
> (3) We understand you are unhappy.  Better get to work with your legislators.
Click to expand...


1) What was done? Jake remind me, I have a hard time remembering when someone digs up a month old conversation to start name calling.

2) Appealing to authority is logically fallacious. The SCOTUS and legislators can be wrong. 

3) It has nothing to do with being happy or otherwise. If you wish to address the criticisms made with arguments instead of appeal to authority let me know.


----------



## whitehall

Knee-jerk history---yes teacher I know it was Benedict Arnold. Funny how the union based pop-culture history stays with us. The subject is so big that you have to limit the scenario to certain times in history. The next thing you have to do is qualify the word "worst". Does it indicate the guy we love to hate or does it indicate the impact the treason had on the future of the Country. Most people don't consider Oswald a traitor simply because he is lost in the manufactured conspiracy regarding the Kennedy assassination.


----------



## JakeStarkey

PretentiousGuy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)So my claim that SCOTUS makes mistake is unamerican?  You just really reduced any dissent of the American government as unamerican; this is a really fucking pathetic ad hominem.
> 
> 2) All of this just to avoid backing up a claim? Whatever legal authority an individual may have is very much separate from from the facts of the matter.
> 
> Ability to enforce =/= legitimate, legal, ethical etc.
> 
> 3) Not liking them? Really? Im not sure illegal warfare, assassinations of american citizens, and war crimes count as dislike. In fact they are very specific charges. Initially you denied that these thing transpired. When you were presented with evidence that they in fact do you moved the goal posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (1) You did far more than that, you unAmerican scum.
> 
> (2) You try to make legitimate constitutional authority illegitimate by building a straw man.  In fact, obozo, We the People give the authority to the government to make laws and to the courts to interpret those laws.  You fail.
> 
> (3) We understand you are unhappy.  Better get to work with your legislators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) What was done? Jake remind me, I have a hard time remembering when someone digs up a month old conversation to start name calling.
> 
> 2) Appealing to authority is logically fallacious. The SCOTUS and legislators can be wrong.
> 
> 3) It has nothing to do with being happy or otherwise. If you wish to address the criticisms made with arguments instead of appeal to authority let me know.
Click to expand...


You have made no logical claims.  You are unhappy.  Who cares?  Don't play coy: you got what you started.  SCOTUS is the authority in all matters constitutional, so it is the authority, not a fallacy (I have heard this idiotic argument asserted elsewhere: how fucking stupid).  Try telling the cop who pulls you over he is not the authority.


----------



## Unkotare

JakeStarkey said:


> Did you take philosophy in HS or college, Uncensored?





This has got to be the funniest thing JakeFakey has ever posted. That the likes of him would even ask the question is hilarious.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Unkotare said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you take philosophy in HS or college, Uncensored?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has got to be the funniest thing JakeFakey has ever posted. That the likes of him would even ask the question is hilarious.
Click to expand...


This is wonderful.  I did not count of Unkotare not getting it.  

He is as stupid as he seems.


----------



## PretentiousGuy

JakeStarkey said:


> PretentiousGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> (1) You did far more than that, you unAmerican scum.
> 
> (2) You try to make legitimate constitutional authority illegitimate by building a straw man.  In fact, obozo, We the People give the authority to the government to make laws and to the courts to interpret those laws.  You fail.
> 
> (3) We understand you are unhappy.  Better get to work with your legislators.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) What was done? Jake remind me, I have a hard time remembering when someone digs up a month old conversation to start name calling.
> 
> 2) Appealing to authority is logically fallacious. The SCOTUS and legislators can be wrong.
> 
> 3) It has nothing to do with being happy or otherwise. If you wish to address the criticisms made with arguments instead of appeal to authority let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have made no logical claims.  You are unhappy.  Who cares?  Don't play coy: you got what you started.  SCOTUS is the authority in all matters constitutional, so it is the authority, not a fallacy (I have heard this idiotic argument asserted elsewhere: how fucking stupid).  Try telling the cop who pulls you over he is not the authority.
Click to expand...


I never claimed the SCOTUS wasnt an authority. When someone tells you appealing to authority is a logical fallacy they are stating that simply having authority doesn't make them right. 

So to be very clear as you clearly didn't get the a MONTH ago or you wouldnt be beating up on the strawman. I did not say the SCOTUS wasnt an authority nor did I claim they were an illegitimate authority. I stated they were fallible and that "SCOTUS said so" is not a cogent argument.


----------



## Ernie S.

martybegan said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> He became president of the resulting organization of states that were in rebellion and seeked replace the existing federal compact. That to me is pretty much as treasonous as you can get, against the federal government at least.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't seek to replace the existing federal compact, he, against his own instincts, merely wanted to opt out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you call the confederate constitution?  He was still the president of said insurrection, which was put down. No matter what other traitors have done, he's the only one who was presdient of a competing federal style government that occupied the same areas the existing federal level government claimed as thier own.
Click to expand...


It wasn't an insurrection until Lincoln made it one. There was no desire on the part of the South to go to war, but there was a willingness to assert their right to leave a union they felt no longer held their best interests.


----------



## Ernie S.

JakeStarkey said:


> Uncensored wanks right along.  Back to your customers.



I have never before seen anyone so committed to being committed to NOTHING in my whole life. Jake you are amazing!


----------



## JakeStarkey

Ernie S. describes himself: a nothing.


----------



## thanatos144

Ernie S. said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't seek to replace the existing federal compact, he, against his own instincts, merely wanted to opt out of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you call the confederate constitution?  He was still the president of said insurrection, which was put down. No matter what other traitors have done, he's the only one who was presdient of a competing federal style government that occupied the same areas the existing federal level government claimed as thier own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't an insurrection until Lincoln made it one. There was no desire on the part of the South to go to war, but there was a willingness to assert their right to leave a union they felt no longer held their best interests.
Click to expand...

If that was true then they shouldn't have attacked Fort Sumter


----------



## Mortimer

I dont know but some White Person who was Racist


----------



## Uncensored2008

thanatos144 said:


> If that was true then they shouldn't have attacked Fort Sumter



Lincoln should not have marched federal troops into contested grounds. Sumter is on Lincoln, regardless of one's position on the Civil War.


----------



## yidnar

Thunderbird said:


> Many possibilities: Aldrich Ames, the Rosenbergs, or Benedict Arnold himself.  My nominee is Harry Dexter White.
> 
> quote: 1. White was the real author of the Morgenthau plan to "turn Germany into a potato field," which when leaked, united non-Nazis with Nazis, stiffened resistance, and prolonged the war.
> 2. White used his position in the Treasury Department to develop a hostile U.S. policy toward Japan. The reason was to distract Japan from their plans to attack the Soviet Union and draw the U.S. into the war as an ally with the Soviet Union.
> 3. White was the author of an extreme ultimatum that Japan could not comply with in the days just prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
> 4. White delayed financial support mandated by law to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist Chinese government causing the triumph of Mao Tse-Tung's Communist Chinese government.
> 5. White was instrumental in handing over the Allied Military mark printing plates to the Soviets. This caused a $250,000,000 deficit in the occupational government budget paid out by the U.S. Treasury. This in effect amounted to the US taxpayer paying the salaries of Soviet occupation troops at a time when US/Soviet relations were deteriorating precisely because of the presence and behavior of Soviet occupation forces in Eastern Europe.
> 
> LINK


the worst traitor is still in office !!


----------



## thanatos144

Uncensored2008 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that was true then they shouldn't have attacked Fort Sumter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln should not have marched federal troops into contested grounds. Sumter is on Lincoln, regardless of one's position on the Civil War.
Click to expand...


Didn't any of you read history? the whole reason Lincoln moved troops was cause Confederates were attacking Sumter. The south wanted war. They wanted to be able to spread slavery...er their economic stable to the new territories and the Union was standing in their way. Fact is Lincoln stayed with the USA where as the confederates didnt. They gave up any and all constitutional protecting when they threw their tantrum and seceded. It didnt work out how they thought.....They ignorantly thought the north needed them .....They were wrong. They started a war. They lost. In the process of holding the country together slaves were freed. Lincoln was a great republican. You dont have to agree with all he did but you cant argue with his success....You want to blame someone for the south living a shity life after that? Look to the democrats they still controlled it for decades after.


----------



## Uncensored2008

thanatos144 said:


> Didn't any of you read history? the whole reason Lincoln moved troops was cause Confederates were attacking Sumter.



Why would the Confederates attack an abandoned fort?

Why would Lincoln send an army against one of the states for attacking an abandoned fort?

None of that is rational. Clearly Lincoln marched his army into the state, for the purpose of imposing the threat of violence on the state.

The fact is that U.S. Major Robert Anderson moved to control Charleston harbor and starve the Confederates.  Buchanan did nothing to support the move, but Lincoln mobilized a major force. It was the federal troops who started the shooting war.



> The south wanted war. They wanted to be able to spread slavery...er their economic stable to the new territories and the Union was standing in their way. Fact is Lincoln stayed with the USA where as the confederates didnt.



Again, your feelings about the South are irrelevant to the facts. I have no love for the Antebellum South, quite the opposite. Slavery was abhorrent and the feudal structure that left most whites in dire poverty was even worse.

However, this does not change the fact that Lincoln deliberately sparked the shooting war.



> They gave up any and all constitutional protecting when they threw their tantrum and seceded.



They mistakenly thought they were a free people.



> It didnt work out how they thought.....They ignorantly thought the north needed them .....They were wrong. They started a war. They lost. In the process of holding the country together slaves were freed.



If the North didn't need them, they wouldn't have fought a war to force them into a union they opposed.



> Lincoln was a great republican. You dont have to agree with all he did but you cant argue with his success....You want to blame someone for the south living a shity life after that? Look to the democrats they still controlled it for decades after.



Lincoln was a thug who pissed all over the constitution.


----------



## thanatos144

Uncensored2008 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't any of you read history? the whole reason Lincoln moved troops was cause Confederates were attacking Sumter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the Confederates attack an abandoned fort?
> 
> Why would Lincoln send an army against one of the states for attacking an abandoned fort?
> 
> None of that is rational. Clearly Lincoln marched his army into the state, for the purpose of imposing the threat of violence on the state.
> 
> The fact is that U.S. Major Robert Anderson moved to control Charleston harbor and starve the Confederates.  Buchanan did nothing to support the move, but Lincoln mobilized a major force. It was the federal troops who started the shooting war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The south wanted war. They wanted to be able to spread slavery...er their economic stable to the new territories and the Union was standing in their way. Fact is Lincoln stayed with the USA where as the confederates didnt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, your feelings about the South are irrelevant to the facts. I have no love for the Antebellum South, quite the opposite. Slavery was abhorrent and the feudal structure that left most whites in dire poverty was even worse.
> 
> However, this does not change the fact that Lincoln deliberately sparked the shooting war.
> 
> 
> 
> They mistakenly thought they were a free people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It didnt work out how they thought.....They ignorantly thought the north needed them .....They were wrong. They started a war. They lost. In the process of holding the country together slaves were freed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the North didn't need them, they wouldn't have fought a war to force them into a union they opposed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was a great republican. You dont have to agree with all he did but you cant argue with his success....You want to blame someone for the south living a shity life after that? Look to the democrats they still controlled it for decades after.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln was a thug who pissed all over the constitution.
Click to expand...


No he didnt. You guys are just going to have to face up to the fact that their secession had consequences and one of those was that they gave up all constitutional protection. They were not Americans. They were enemies of the USA. They started a war and they lost.


----------



## Thunderbird

More about Harry Dexter White: *The Communist Agent Who Caused Pearl Harbor &#8212; and Global Economic Havoc *


----------



## rightwinger

Bobby Lee


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Fdr


----------



## gipper

Uncensored2008 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't any of you read history? the whole reason Lincoln moved troops was cause Confederates were attacking Sumter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the Confederates attack an abandoned fort?
> 
> Why would Lincoln send an army against one of the states for attacking an abandoned fort?
> 
> None of that is rational. Clearly Lincoln marched his army into the state, for the purpose of imposing the threat of violence on the state.
> 
> The fact is that U.S. Major Robert Anderson moved to control Charleston harbor and starve the Confederates.  Buchanan did nothing to support the move, but Lincoln mobilized a major force. It was the federal troops who started the shooting war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The south wanted war. They wanted to be able to spread slavery...er their economic stable to the new territories and the Union was standing in their way. Fact is Lincoln stayed with the USA where as the confederates didnt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, your feelings about the South are irrelevant to the facts. I have no love for the Antebellum South, quite the opposite. Slavery was abhorrent and the feudal structure that left most whites in dire poverty was even worse.
> 
> However, this does not change the fact that Lincoln deliberately sparked the shooting war.
> 
> 
> 
> They mistakenly thought they were a free people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It didnt work out how they thought.....They ignorantly thought the north needed them .....They were wrong. They started a war. They lost. In the process of holding the country together slaves were freed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the North didn't need them, they wouldn't have fought a war to force them into a union they opposed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was a great republican. You dont have to agree with all he did but you cant argue with his success....You want to blame someone for the south living a shity life after that? Look to the democrats they still controlled it for decades after.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln was a thug who pissed all over the constitution.
Click to expand...


Agreed.

So many Americans duped by the propaganda mills aka government schools. Sad. Very sad.

Most Americans believe that Abraham Lincoln "saved" the voluntary union of states that was created by the founding fathers, based on the principle that government&#8217;s just powers are derived from the consent of the governed by micromanaging the waging of total war on Americans who no longer consented to being governed by Washington, D.C., killing hundreds of thousands of them.

Lincoln committed treason by warring on fellow Americans merely to impose the will of the federal government...causing the deaths of 850,000 Americans and near total destruction of half the nation.  Heinous...very heinous.


----------



## jillian

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even assuming that Davis was a traitor, how is the worst traitor in U.S. history a person that argued against secession while he was a U.S. Senator, and merely went along with his state?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He became president of the resulting organization of states that were in rebellion and seeked replace the existing federal compact. That to me is pretty much as treasonous as you can get, against the federal government at least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He didn't seek to replace the existing federal compact, he, against his own instincts, merely wanted to opt out of it.
Click to expand...



trea·son
  [tree-zuhn]  Show IPA  

noun  
1. 
the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign. 

2. 
a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state. 

3. 
the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery. 

Treason | Define Treason at Dictionary.com


----------



## jillian

gipper said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't any of you read history? the whole reason Lincoln moved troops was cause Confederates were attacking Sumter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the Confederates attack an abandoned fort?
> 
> Why would Lincoln send an army against one of the states for attacking an abandoned fort?
> 
> None of that is rational. Clearly Lincoln marched his army into the state, for the purpose of imposing the threat of violence on the state.
> 
> The fact is that U.S. Major Robert Anderson moved to control Charleston harbor and starve the Confederates.  Buchanan did nothing to support the move, but Lincoln mobilized a major force. It was the federal troops who started the shooting war.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your feelings about the South are irrelevant to the facts. I have no love for the Antebellum South, quite the opposite. Slavery was abhorrent and the feudal structure that left most whites in dire poverty was even worse.
> 
> However, this does not change the fact that Lincoln deliberately sparked the shooting war.
> 
> 
> 
> They mistakenly thought they were a free people.
> 
> 
> 
> If the North didn't need them, they wouldn't have fought a war to force them into a union they opposed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was a great republican. You dont have to agree with all he did but you cant argue with his success....You want to blame someone for the south living a shity life after that? Look to the democrats they still controlled it for decades after.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln was a thug who pissed all over the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> So many Americans duped by the propaganda mills aka government schools. Sad. Very sad.
> 
> Most Americans believe that Abraham Lincoln "saved" the voluntary union of states that was created by the founding fathers, based on the principle that governments just powers are derived from the consent of the governed by micromanaging the waging of total war on Americans who no longer consented to being governed by Washington, D.C., killing hundreds of thousands of them.
> 
> Lincoln committed treason by warring on fellow Americans merely to impose the will of the federal government...causing the deaths of 850,000 Americans and near total destruction of half the nation.  Heinous...very heinous.
Click to expand...


in other words, people should be taught revisionist confederate insurrectionist history? or is it that you hate anyone who has more than a third grade education?

either way, don't think so. 

but thanks anyway.


----------



## jillian

Uncensored2008 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that was true then they shouldn't have attacked Fort Sumter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln should not have marched federal troops into contested grounds. Sumter is on Lincoln, regardless of one's position on the Civil War.
Click to expand...


Lincoln should have treated the confederate troops like the traitors they were. and then he should have let them go after kicking their butts and taking away their slaves... .you know, since the same gubmint haters are the states' rights nutters today.

after the war they tried posse comitatus
then they tried jim crow
then they tried keeping people from voting... 

oh wait... that's what the nutters are doing now. oops.


----------



## bedowin62

easy; left-wing nutjobs like Jillian that voted for "change" on the basis of color and far-left-wing policies alone


----------



## Meathead

I'm surprised the Rosenbergs were left out.


----------



## jillian

Meathead said:


> I'm surprised the Rosenbergs were left out.



they were mentioned. but they were hardly the worst. she probably wasn't even guilty.

and they certainly shouldn't have been put to death.


----------



## rightwinger

jillian said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm surprised the Rosenbergs were left out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they were mentioned. but they were hardly the worst. she probably wasn't even guilty.
> 
> and they certainly shouldn't have been put to death.
Click to expand...


They threatened Julius that unless he named names Ethel would get the chair

The Government used Ethel as a hostage


----------



## Meathead

rightwinger said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm surprised the Rosenbergs were left out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they were mentioned. but they were hardly the worst. she probably wasn't even guilty.
> 
> and they certainly shouldn't have been put to death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They threatened Julius that unless he named names Ethel would get the chair
> 
> The Government used Ethel as a hostage
Click to expand...

They were the worst kind of traitors. Their guilt is not in question, only the value of the information they delivered.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Meathead said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> they were mentioned. but they were hardly the worst. she probably wasn't even guilty.
> 
> and they certainly shouldn't have been put to death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They threatened Julius that unless he named names Ethel would get the chair
> 
> The Government used Ethel as a hostage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were the worst kind of traitors. Their guilt is not in question, only the value of the information they delivered.
Click to expand...


They were Brooklyn Dodgers fans, and, yes, both were unquestionably guilty.


----------



## rightwinger

Meathead said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> they were mentioned. but they were hardly the worst. she probably wasn't even guilty.
> 
> and they certainly shouldn't have been put to death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They threatened Julius that unless he named names Ethel would get the chair
> 
> The Government used Ethel as a hostage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were the worst kind of traitors. Their guilt is not in question, only the value of the information they delivered.
Click to expand...


Yet those who actually had access to the Secrets and those who actually handed them to the Soviets only received 10-20 years


----------



## Meathead

rightwinger said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> They threatened Julius that unless he named names Ethel would get the chair
> 
> The Government used Ethel as a hostage
> 
> 
> 
> They were the worst kind of traitors. Their guilt is not in question, only the value of the information they delivered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet those who actually had access to the Secrets and those who actually handed them to the Soviets only received 10-20 years
Click to expand...

Julius was originally recruited, the head of the ring and the conduit. Without his treason, nothing would have happened.


----------



## Uncensored2008

jillian said:


> in other words, people should be taught revisionist confederate insurrectionist history? or is it that you hate anyone who has more than a third grade education?
> 
> either way, don't think so.
> 
> but thanks anyway.



Jillian, it's clear that you have very little education, and zero intellectual curiosity. 

But Lincoln did some things that those who have a better grasp of the law find questionable, such as suspending habeas corpus. Because you are a hack, with a 3rd grade education (at best) you imagine that means I am supporting the South. Except that Jefferson Davis suspended habeas corpus as well. 

Lincoln was a scumbag who pissed on the Constitution - that is a matter of historical fact. It does not however alter the fact that Davis was also a scumbag with no regard for the Constitution. Due to your low intellect, you must take a side, you cannot grasp that both sides acted badly - VERY badly.


----------



## gipper

Uncensored2008 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> in other words, people should be taught revisionist confederate insurrectionist history? or is it that you hate anyone who has more than a third grade education?
> 
> either way, don't think so.
> 
> but thanks anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jillian, it's clear that you have very little education, and zero intellectual curiosity.
> 
> But Lincoln did some things that those who have a better grasp of the law find questionable, such as suspending habeas corpus. Because you are a hack, with a 3rd grade education (at best) you imagine that means I am supporting the South. Except that Jefferson Davis suspended habeas corpus as well.
> 
> Lincoln was a scumbag who pissed on the Constitution - that is a matter of historical fact. It does not however alter the fact that Davis was also a scumbag with no regard for the Constitution. Due to your low intellect, you must take a side, you cannot grasp that both sides acted badly - VERY badly.
Click to expand...


Agreed on all points, except Jillian's education or lack there of.

It is not that Jillian is uneducated, it is she/he/it has been indoctrinated by the State.  Millions of Americans believe the same thing and the facts do not change them.

I guess one could conclude that the state's indoctrination of the Lincoln Myth has been extraordinarily successful.   

Sad.  Very sad.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Meathead said:


> I'm surprised the Rosenbergs were left out.



Half of the top people in the FDR Administration should have been in line behind the Rosenbergs


----------



## Uncensored2008

gipper said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> in other words, people should be taught revisionist confederate insurrectionist history? or is it that you hate anyone who has more than a third grade education?
> 
> either way, don't think so.
> 
> but thanks anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jillian, it's clear that you have very little education, and zero intellectual curiosity.
> 
> But Lincoln did some things that those who have a better grasp of the law find questionable, such as suspending habeas corpus. Because you are a hack, with a 3rd grade education (at best) you imagine that means I am supporting the South. Except that Jefferson Davis suspended habeas corpus as well.
> 
> Lincoln was a scumbag who pissed on the Constitution - that is a matter of historical fact. It does not however alter the fact that Davis was also a scumbag with no regard for the Constitution. Due to your low intellect, you must take a side, you cannot grasp that both sides acted badly - VERY badly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed on all points, except Jillian's education or lack there of.
> 
> It is not that Jillian is uneducated, it is she/he/it has been indoctrinated by the State.  Millions of Americans believe the same thing and the facts do not change them.
> 
> I guess one could conclude that the state's indoctrination of the Lincoln Myth has been extraordinarily successful.
> 
> Sad.  Very sad.
Click to expand...


Jillian claims to be a lawyer, but it's clear she never learned critical thinking skills. She has at best a high school education. IMO


----------



## gipper

Uncensored2008 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jillian, it's clear that you have very little education, and zero intellectual curiosity.
> 
> But Lincoln did some things that those who have a better grasp of the law find questionable, such as suspending habeas corpus. Because you are a hack, with a 3rd grade education (at best) you imagine that means I am supporting the South. Except that Jefferson Davis suspended habeas corpus as well.
> 
> Lincoln was a scumbag who pissed on the Constitution - that is a matter of historical fact. It does not however alter the fact that Davis was also a scumbag with no regard for the Constitution. Due to your low intellect, you must take a side, you cannot grasp that both sides acted badly - VERY badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed on all points, except Jillian's education or lack there of.
> 
> It is not that Jillian is uneducated, it is she/he/it has been indoctrinated by the State.  Millions of Americans believe the same thing and the facts do not change them.
> 
> I guess one could conclude that the state's indoctrination of the Lincoln Myth has been extraordinarily successful.
> 
> Sad.  Very sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jillian claims to be a lawyer, but it's clear she never learned critical thinking skills. She has at best a high school education. IMO
Click to expand...


She could be highly educated...hell she could have a PhD and still believe the Lincoln Myth.  Millions of educated Americans believe the myth.  So, education does not determine whether one is capable of seeing the truth.  One must be able to think logically and critically.

Jillian, like so many Lincoln Cultists, fails to see the truth and condemns those who do as a neo-Confederate who loves slavery.  Yeah I know it is most childish and ignorant, but the truth is difficult for some to accept, so they lash out like a two year old.


----------



## Bush92

rightwinger said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm surprised the Rosenbergs were left out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they were mentioned. but they were hardly the worst. she probably wasn't even guilty.
> 
> and they certainly shouldn't have been put to death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They threatened Julius that unless he named names Ethel would get the chair
> 
> The Government used Ethel as a hostage
Click to expand...

Rosenberg's got what they deserved.


----------



## Bush92

Arnold has to be #1. He tried to walk Washington into a trap. From what  I read Arnold's wife was real bitch and the guy was dumb in love with her.I would add Lyndon Baines Johnson to the list. His handling of Vietnam war was scandalous. Then he quits with men on the field of battle.Another dirt bag was agent Hansen of the FBI.#1 political traitor was Bill Clinton. Elected with huge support from union households-life long Democrats going back to FDR-then he signs NAFTA and millions of union members lost their jobs.


----------



## Bush92

BTW Jefferson Davis was not a traitor. The issue of states rights was very legitimate in his day. There was no "THE" United States of America until 1865. It was always "THESE" United States of America.


----------



## jillian

Bush92 said:


> BTW Jefferson Davis was not a traitor. The issue of states rights was very legitimate in his day. There was no "THE" United States of America until 1865. It was always "THESE" United States of America.



he was a traitor...as were the other secessionists.


----------



## jillian

Uncensored2008 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jillian, it's clear that you have very little education, and zero intellectual curiosity.
> 
> But Lincoln did some things that those who have a better grasp of the law find questionable, such as suspending habeas corpus. Because you are a hack, with a 3rd grade education (at best) you imagine that means I am supporting the South. Except that Jefferson Davis suspended habeas corpus as well.
> 
> Lincoln was a scumbag who pissed on the Constitution - that is a matter of historical fact. It does not however alter the fact that Davis was also a scumbag with no regard for the Constitution. Due to your low intellect, you must take a side, you cannot grasp that both sides acted badly - VERY badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed on all points, except Jillian's education or lack there of.
> 
> It is not that Jillian is uneducated, it is she/he/it has been indoctrinated by the State.  Millions of Americans believe the same thing and the facts do not change them.
> 
> I guess one could conclude that the state's indoctrination of the Lincoln Myth has been extraordinarily successful.
> 
> Sad.  Very sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jillian claims to be a lawyer, but it's clear she never learned critical thinking skills. She has at best a high school education. IMO
Click to expand...


poor deluded loon. you wish.


----------



## Meathead

Uncensored2008 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jillian, it's clear that you have very little education, and zero intellectual curiosity.
> 
> But Lincoln did some things that those who have a better grasp of the law find questionable, such as suspending habeas corpus. Because you are a hack, with a 3rd grade education (at best) you imagine that means I am supporting the South. Except that Jefferson Davis suspended habeas corpus as well.
> 
> Lincoln was a scumbag who pissed on the Constitution - that is a matter of historical fact. It does not however alter the fact that Davis was also a scumbag with no regard for the Constitution. Due to your low intellect, you must take a side, you cannot grasp that both sides acted badly - VERY badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed on all points, except Jillian's education or lack there of.
> 
> It is not that Jillian is uneducated, it is she/he/it has been indoctrinated by the State.  Millions of Americans believe the same thing and the facts do not change them.
> 
> I guess one could conclude that the state's indoctrination of the Lincoln Myth has been extraordinarily successful.
> 
> Sad.  Very sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jillian claims to be a lawyer, but it's clear she never learned critical thinking skills. She has at best a high school education. IMO
Click to expand...




jillian said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW Jefferson Davis was not a traitor. The issue of states rights was very legitimate in his day. There was no "THE" United States of America until 1865. It was always "THESE" United States of America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he was a traitor...as were the other secessionists.
Click to expand...

When he's right, he's right.


----------



## jillian

gipper said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed on all points, except Jillian's education or lack there of.
> 
> It is not that Jillian is uneducated, it is she/he/it has been indoctrinated by the State.  Millions of Americans believe the same thing and the facts do not change them.
> 
> I guess one could conclude that the state's indoctrination of the Lincoln Myth has been extraordinarily successful.
> 
> Sad.  Very sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jillian claims to be a lawyer, but it's clear she never learned critical thinking skills. She has at best a high school education. IMO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She could be highly educated...hell she could have a PhD and still believe the Lincoln Myth.  Millions of educated Americans believe the myth.  So, education does not determine whether one is capable of seeing the truth.  One must be able to think logically and critically.
> 
> Jillian, like so many Lincoln Cultists, fails to see the truth and condemns those who do as a neo-Confederate who loves slavery.  Yeah I know it is most childish and ignorant, but the truth is difficult for some to accept, so they lash out like a two year old.
Click to expand...


you are correct about education. uncensored is just an idiot who thinks anyone who isn't drunk on rightwingnut kool aid isn't very smart. he might know otherwise, but it's his usual rant. I know that there are people who disagree with me who are very smart. he just isn't one of them.

as for it being a myth... I think you're engaging in revisionist history. I understand you're doing that because you have a particular belief. it isn't one that is historically accurate. did Lincoln do things i'd disagree with today? probably. but not nearly as much as i'd have disagreed with owning another human being. 

but I do think a large part of what is wrong with this country dates back to those days and to the anger still festering in the states' rights crowd.

to me... to take the whole states' rights position is contrary to the reason the constitution was enacted in lieu of the articles of confederation. if it was supposed to be some loose affiliation with a weak centralized government, we'd have stayed the way we were.

and, mostly, to me the states rights crowd is as violently angry as they appear to be is they are still resentful about the south losing its slaves, the federal government forcing desegregation and the law of the land not allowing theocratic laws to burden our populations.

so nothing has really changed that much since 1865


----------



## Bush92

A large part of whats wrong with this country dates back to LBJ's election in 1964.


----------



## Uncensored2008

jillian said:


> poor deluded loon. you wish.



Even in this, you reveal a lack of critical thinking...

Why would I "wish?" You appear to me to be poorly educated, though you claim otherwise. Your general writing skills are at best at the 7th grade level. Couple this with your general ignorance on most subject, and your rabid partisanship; let's just say your claims are a bit suspect....


----------



## MaryL

Edward Snowden, then there was that queen that sold out the US ARMY, had the nerve to request a sex change after his/her crimes and then request  the US tax payer had to pay for it. Bradley Manning.  Are you kidding?


----------



## jillian

Bush92 said:


> A large part of whats wrong with this country dates back to LBJ's election in 1964.



yes, that terrible civil rights act that made racists so unhappy.

waaaaaaaaa


----------



## jillian

Uncensored2008 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> poor deluded loon. you wish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even in this, you reveal a lack of critical thinking...
> 
> Why would I "wish?" You appear to me to be poorly educated, though you claim otherwise. Your general writing skills are at best at the 7th grade level. Couple this with your general ignorance on most subject, and your rabid partisanship; let's just say your claims are a bit suspect....
Click to expand...


Like is said...... 

And anyone who isn't brain dead knows i'm far from poorly educated.

The fact that you are subliterate probably causes you to think that way.

As for partisanship.... it's you and your friends who are rabid. but then again, normal people know this. so I can't expect that you would 

Go rant some more.


----------



## Uncensored2008

jillian said:


> Like is said......
> 
> And anyone who isn't brain dead knows i'm far from poorly educated.
> 
> The fact that you are subliterate probably causes you to think that way.
> 
> As for partisanship....
> 
> Go rant some more.



You write poorly; you have no sense at all regarding basic grammar. You claim to be a lawyer, yet display utterly no understanding of the basic principles of law. I am not a lawyer, but I am an MBA and have had quite a few law classes, part of the process. Even with my limited knowledge of the law, most of what you post is painfully ignorant. I contrast this with Saul Goodman (C_Clayton_Jones - had to check for pink), who though I disagree with as strongly with as I do you, does demonstrate knowledge of legal procedures and can only conclude your claims are a farce..


----------



## thanatos144

jillian said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A large part of whats wrong with this country dates back to LBJ's election in 1964.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, that terrible civil rights act that made racists so unhappy.
> 
> waaaaaaaaa
Click to expand...










Your hero....Sorry but he was still a racist just like JFK was.


----------



## longly

If you had read the constitution, you would understand that there are no federal elections. You have NEVER cast a "united states ballot," and they don't exist. All elections are held by the sovereign states. When you go cast your ballot for Obama, you will cast it in the state you live in, it has no meaning outside of your state. 

So would California secede if an election in Texas doesn't go their way? That is utterly absurd. Elections are only state-wide, and it is the complete failure of our educational system that results in so many not grasping this.



> I don&#8217;t know if this guy is liberal or conservative but on this subject he is totally correct on all points. We live in a federal republic with a system of duel sovereignty.  All sovereignty in  this country resides in the people and they delegate through the Constitution some sovereignty to the state and federal governments. Neither government is dominate over the other; they both serve the people in there own way, or at least they should.


----------



## gipper

longly said:


> If you had read the constitution, you would understand that there are no federal elections. You have NEVER cast a "united states ballot," and they don't exist. All elections are held by the sovereign states. When you go cast your ballot for Obama, you will cast it in the state you live in, it has no meaning outside of your state.
> 
> So would California secede if an election in Texas doesn't go their way? That is utterly absurd. Elections are only state-wide, and it is the complete failure of our educational system that results in so many not grasping this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don&#8217;t know if this guy is liberal or conservative but on this subject he is totally correct on all points. We live in a federal republic with a system of duel sovereignty.  All sovereignty in  this country resides in the people and they delegate through the Constitution some sovereignty to the state and federal governments. Neither government is dominate over the other; they both serve the people in there own way, or at least they should.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They should, but do not.
> 
> Our system has been bastardized by the two political parties, corrupt government bureaucrats, along with largest corporations and banks...and the Federal Reserve.
> 
> The American people work for the American government.  Not the other way around.
Click to expand...


----------



## bendog

I don't think technically you can call confederates traitors.  They had a bona fide belief that the constitution allowed states to reform into separate alignments.  And, they did not wish to align with other countries or bring down the US for other countries benefits.


----------



## thanatos144

Ron Paul. For sending our troops in to war and refusing to fund them,. They should jail the cock sucker.


----------



## Uncensored2008

thanatos144 said:


> Ron Paul. For sending our troops in to war and refusing to fund them,. They should jail the cock sucker.



Sometimes you are as absurd as the Communists...


----------



## GISMYS

HANDS DOWN= CLUELESS obama. He has done more damage to america than all our enemies.


----------



## thanatos144

Uncensored2008 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ron Paul. For sending our troops in to war and refusing to fund them,. They should jail the cock sucker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes you are as absurd as the Communists...
Click to expand...


You find something wrong with the truth?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

thanatos144 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ron Paul. For sending our troops in to war and refusing to fund them,. They should jail the cock sucker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes you are as absurd as the Communists...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You find something wrong with the truth?
Click to expand...


Conveniently omitting the fact that he would have brought all of the troops home years ago so that they wouldn't have required funding isn't the "truth."


----------



## thanatos144

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes you are as absurd as the Communists...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You find something wrong with the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conveniently omitting the fact that he would have brought all of the troops home years ago so that they wouldn't have required funding isn't the "truth."
Click to expand...

What bullshit. He lies like I breath 


tapatalk post


----------



## Billo_Really

Everyone who supported the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, are the worst traitors in American history.


----------



## Ernie S.

Name someone you support who didn't support either.


----------



## Billo_Really

Ernie S. said:


> Name someone you support who didn't support either.


Cindy Sheehan, Sean Penn and Merv Griffin.

There, I gave you 3.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

thanatos144 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You find something wrong with the truth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conveniently omitting the fact that he would have brought all of the troops home years ago so that they wouldn't have required funding isn't the "truth."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What bullshit. He lies like I breath
> 
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


So Ron Paul is not on the record as supporting ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan years ago and bringing all the troops from around the world back home?


----------



## Crystalclear

thanatos144 said:


> Ron Paul. For sending our troops in to war and refusing to fund them,. They should jail the cock sucker.



No, the politicians who send American citizens into a war that is absolutely not necessary come closer to being a traitor.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Uncensored2008 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> in other words, people should be taught revisionist confederate insurrectionist history? or is it that you hate anyone who has more than a third grade education?
> 
> either way, don't think so.
> 
> but thanks anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jillian, it's clear that you have very little education, and zero intellectual curiosity.
> 
> But Lincoln did some things that those who have a better grasp of the law find questionable, such as suspending habeas corpus. Because you are a hack, with a 3rd grade education (at best) you imagine that means I am supporting the South. Except that Jefferson Davis suspended habeas corpus as well.
> 
> Lincoln was a scumbag who pissed on the Constitution - that is a matter of historical fact. It does not however alter the fact that Davis was also a scumbag with no regard for the Constitution. Due to your low intellect, you must take a side, you cannot grasp that both sides acted badly - VERY badly.
Click to expand...


Those of us who are so better informed than you, Uncensored, realize firmly that you are tolerated only for the grins and chuckles your inane remarks bring.

You truly lighten up the Board with your third grade approach to life's little problems.

Lincoln was indeed within the Constitution to suspend HC.  And your support for slavery and copperhead beliefs, if you had lived then, would have led to your being sent South.

To learn and think is not a sin.  You should try it.


----------



## I.P.Freely

Billo_Really said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name someone you support who didn't support either.
> 
> 
> 
> Cindy Sheehan, Sean Penn and Merv Griffin.
> 
> There, I gave you 3.
Click to expand...

here are a few more from your coalition partners.
*BBC NEWS | UK | Politics | Did your MP support the rebels?*


----------



## S.J.

Barack Obama, hands down.  The ultimate enemy of the U.S.  The enemy from within.  The enemy at the gates.  A foreigner who escaped scrutiny through political correctness and media complicity to become President and then set out to systematically dismantle the foundation of the greatest country in the history of the world and who is currently still selling us down the river.


----------



## Billo_Really

Crystalclear said:


> No, the politicians who send American citizens into a war that is absolutely not necessary come closer to being a traitor.


 _"...come close..."?_

You're being way to kind to a bunch people who are so cavalier with the lives of American troops, that they put our soldiers in harms way over bullshit lies.

In addition, spending over $4 trillion US taxpayer dollars and getting absolutely nothing in return, shows they didn't give a shit about this country, either.


----------



## Meathead

Billo_Really said:


> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the politicians who send American citizens into a war that is absolutely not necessary come closer to being a traitor.
> 
> 
> 
> _"...come close..."?_
> 
> You're being way to kind to a bunch people who are so cavalier with the lives of American troops, that they put our soldiers in harms way over bullshit lies.
> 
> In addition, spending over $4 trillion US taxpayer dollars and getting absolutely nothing in return, shows they didn't give a shit about this country, either.
Click to expand...

OK, you were against the wars, but getting absolutely nothing is abjectly ultra-partisan and patently daft.

Saddam and the Taliban are out of power, an incredibly strategic area is far more stable and Iraq's petrol taps are open. Iraq hasn't attacked any of it's neighbors for over a decade and, last I heard, public stoning of women for adultery and has stopped and education for women has started in Kabul.


----------



## Billo_Really

Meathead said:


> OK, you were against the wars, but getting absolutely nothing is abjectly ultra-partisan and patently daft.
> 
> Saddam and the Taliban are out of power, an incredibly strategic area is far more stable and Iraq's petrol taps are open. Iraq hasn't attacked any of it's neighbors for over a decade and, last I heard, public stoning of women for adultery and has stopped and education for women has started in Kabul.


How has that benefited average American's?

How is my life better because of that?

I don't give a shit, who's in power in other country's.  It's none of my business!

However, if someone does attack us, then that is my business and I would support us going over there and fucking up their shit!  But we were not attacked by Hussein and the Taliban and it is un-American launching wars of aggression.


----------



## Meathead

Billo_Really said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, you were against the wars, but getting absolutely nothing is abjectly ultra-partisan and patently daft.
> 
> Saddam and the Taliban are out of power, an incredibly strategic area is far more stable and Iraq's petrol taps are open. Iraq hasn't attacked any of it's neighbors for over a decade and, last I heard, public stoning of women for adultery and has stopped and education for women has started in Kabul.
> 
> 
> 
> How has that benefited average American's?
> 
> How is my life better because of that?
> 
> I don't give a shit, who's in power in other country's.  It's none of my business!
> 
> However, if someone does attack us, then that is my business and I would support us going over there and fucking up their shit!  But we were not attacked by Hussein and the Taliban and it is un-American launching wars of aggression.
Click to expand...

Two things, you don't dictate what is "un-American" and you're not paying $10 a gallon for gas. I guess you miss public stonings of women and gassing of Kurds


----------



## Billo_Really

Meathead said:


> Two things, you don't dictate what is "un-American" and you're not paying $10 a gallon for gas. I guess you miss public stonings of women and gassing of Kurds


I know exactly what an American is and what it is not.

This is a country that was founded (and based) on the rule of law.

Being an American, means you support the rule of law.

Being un-American, means you don't.

Deliberately violating the Supreme Law of the Land (the Constitution), is un-American.

Attacking country's that did not attack you first, is not only illegal, but  is immoral.

And doing the same thing Nazi Germany did, is not American.


----------



## Unkotare

That scumbag FDR still takes the traitorous cake.


----------



## eflatminor

Unkotare said:


> That scumbag FDR still takes the traitorous cake.



Woodrow Wilson by a nose...


----------



## Unkotare

eflatminor said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That scumbag FDR still takes the traitorous cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woodrow Wilson by a nose...
Click to expand...




Nah, his concentration camps were nothing like the scale and indiscriminate racism of FDR's.


----------



## JWBooth

thanatos144 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You find something wrong with the truth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conveniently omitting the fact that he would have brought all of the troops home years ago so that they wouldn't have required funding isn't the "truth."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What bullshit. He lies like I *breath *
> 
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...

Dropout strikes again


----------



## gipper

Unkotare said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That scumbag FDR still takes the traitorous cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woodrow Wilson by a nose...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, his concentration camps were nothing like the scale and indiscriminate racism of FDR's.
Click to expand...


Boy that's a toughie...Wilson or FDR....two scumbags of enormous proportions.

Both ignored the Constitution...thought it was no better than TP.  FDR probably is the worst due to over 3 terms of damage (and yet amazingly many Americans admire the fool...ah the wonders of statist propaganda).  Both got us into world wars and FDR prolonged the suffering of the Great Depression for a decade (just as Big Ears is prolonging the Great Recession today)...but Wilson gave us the Federal Reserve, which has to be one of the most traitorous actions ever done.


----------



## whitehall

FBI agent Robert Hanssen. His wife and kids were awarded a pension as if he was killed in the line of duty.


----------



## regent

gipper said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Woodrow Wilson by a nose...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, his concentration camps were nothing like the scale and indiscriminate racism of FDR's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boy that's a toughie...Wilson or FDR....two scumbags of enormous proportions.
> 
> Both ignored the Constitution...thought it was no better than TP.  FDR probably is the worst due to over 3 terms of damage (and yet amazingly many Americans admire the fool...ah the wonders of statist propaganda).  Both got us into world wars and FDR prolonged the suffering of the Great Depression for a decade (just as Big Ears is prolonging the Great Recession today)...but Wilson gave us the Federal Reserve, which has to be one of the most traitorous actions ever done.
Click to expand...


Too bad historians don't have your sources to judge presidents. Since 1948 the noted American historians have been judging presidents and they have always rated FDR in the top three and Wilson from fourth to eighth best president. 
Might check out the history of the Federal Reserve, it can be traced back to J. P Morgan and later Senator Nelson Aldrich. A good source is the study by Robert Craig.


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> Since 1948 the noted American historians have been judging presidents and they have always rated FDR in the top three and Wilson from fourth to eighth best president. .





Illogical boy is back to wave his little fallacy around.


----------



## R.C. Christian

Woodrow Wilson.


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since 1948 the noted American historians have been judging presidents and they have always rated FDR in the top three and Wilson from fourth to eighth best president. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illogical boy is back to wave his little fallacy around.
Click to expand...


Always happy when posters give me a chance to use historians when discussing presidents. It seems so much more appropriate  using historians to validate one's history than poster's opinions.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Aaron Burr


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since 1948 the noted American historians have been judging presidents and they have always rated FDR in the top three and Wilson from fourth to eighth best president. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illogical boy is back to wave his little fallacy around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Always happy when posters give me a chance to use historians when discussing presidents.
Click to expand...



You mean you're always happy to fall back on logical fallacy instead of trying something tricky like thinking or defending a position.


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Illogical boy is back to wave his little fallacy around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Always happy when posters give me a chance to use historians when discussing presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you're always happy to fall back on logical fallacy instead of trying something tricky like thinking or defending a position.
Click to expand...


The historians do a good job of defending my evaluation of FDR's place in history, and so far you haven't seemed to have changed my or their evaluations. Might try the Fala dog story, or the FDR was a dictator thing or your favorite, the concentration camp.  I don't think the birther thing was ever used, might try that, it got some traction with Obama. The thing is, this was all done, and more, when FDR  was president and people still voted for FDR four times, so unless you have something new it's pretty much old hat. In short, it's history.


----------



## R.C. Christian

Unkotare said:


> That scumbag FDR still takes the traitorous cake.



Why? Because he put your grandmother in a camp?


----------



## Picaro

Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan. All of the top 10 traitors are Republicans.


----------



## Picaro

R.C. Christian said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That scumbag FDR still takes the traitorous cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Because he put your grandmother in a camp?
Click to expand...


I don't know why that is supposed to be some sort of 'crime', since less than half of the Japanese here were American citizens, and they were avid supporters of the Japanese invasions of the rest of Asia and the mass atrocities those vermin committed, and routinely raised and sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to 'support their troops'. It was hardly unreasonable to quarantine them, and there was no time to spend years sorting them all out after they declared war on us.


----------



## regent

R.C. Christian said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That scumbag FDR still takes the traitorous cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Because he put your grandmother in a camp?
Click to expand...


I wonder if anyone realizes that the prejudice towards the Japanese was enormous even before Pearl Harbor, but as a result of the 442nd heroism that prejudice was wiped out hopefully forever after WWII. Had it not been for that whole war thing, concentration camps 442nd and all, how long would it have taken for America to replace its feeling toward those of Japanese heritage?


----------



## regent

R.C. Christian said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That scumbag FDR still takes the traitorous cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Because he put your grandmother in a camp?
Click to expand...


Before the war the prejudice toward those of Japanese heritage was enormous especially on the west coast. Because of  the war, the 442nd and maybe even the guilt of the camps, that prejudice seemed to have decreased enormously by the end of the war. In a way that reduction of prejudice might be attributed to one prejudiced individual, General DeWitt.


----------



## HelenaHandbag

R.C. Christian said:


> Woodrow Wilson.


Seconded.


----------



## HelenaHandbag

Unkotare said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That scumbag FDR still takes the traitorous cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woodrow Wilson by a nose...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, his concentration camps were nothing like the scale and indiscriminate racism of FDR's.
Click to expand...

Wilson's progressive despotism set the stage for FDR.


----------



## eflatminor

> Since 1948 the noted American *PROGRESSIVE *historians have been judging presidents and they have always rated FDR in the top three and Wilson from fourth to eighth best president.



Fixed that for you...


----------



## whitehall

What does it say about agencies like the G. Men and CIA promoted by decades of Hollywood fiction when the freaking FBI couldn't find agent Robert Hanssen in the next cubicle and it took the CIA ten years to figure out that their own guy was killing informants by releasing their names to the Russians? FBI agent Robert Hanssen spied for the Russians for 22 years and when they finally caught him the chicken shit FBI agreed to a plea bargain to avoid a trial that might embarrass them and his family was awarded a freaking pension as if he retired honorably instead of being a traitor to his Country. The CIA hasn't done anything right since WW2. The overrated over funded agency was surprised by Korea, Castro, the Berlin Wall, Lee Oswald, VietNam and freaking 9-11. No wonder they couldn't find a spy in the next cubicle.


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Always happy when posters give me a chance to use historians when discussing presidents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you're always happy to fall back on logical fallacy instead of trying something tricky like thinking or defending a position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The historians do a good job of defending my evaluation of FDR's place in history
Click to expand...



And there he goes again, avoiding all that troublesome 'thinking.' At least you won't get the headaches this way.


----------



## Unkotare

Picaro said:


> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That scumbag FDR still takes the traitorous cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Because he put your grandmother in a camp?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know why that is supposed to be some sort of 'crime', since less than half of the Japanese here were American citizens, and they were avid supporters of the Japanese invasions of the rest of Asia and the mass atrocities those vermin committed, and routinely raised and sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to 'support their troops'. It was hardly unreasonable to quarantine them, and there was no time to spend years sorting them all out after they declared war on us.
Click to expand...




The majority of those deprived of their property, liberty, due process, and thrown into FD-fucking-R's concentration camps were US citizens, douche. _Not one_ Japanese-American was ever convicted of treason, espionage, or sabotage during WWII, unlike German and Italian Americans. If you can't understand what was wrong with that scumbag and his concentration camps then you are no American and you should get the fuck out of my country at once.


----------



## Unkotare

R.C. Christian said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That scumbag FDR still takes the traitorous cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Because he put your grandmother in a camp?
Click to expand...



What the hell is that supposed to mean, psycho? As usual, you are making no sense whatsoever.


----------



## regent

eflatminor said:


> Since 1948 the noted American *PROGRESSIVE *historians have been judging presidents and they have always rated FDR in the top three and Wilson from fourth to eighth best president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fixed that for you...
Click to expand...


The Wall Street Journal rated FDR third best and Wilson eleventh best. The conservative historians rated FDR third best and Wilson eighth best. The people in an ABC poll taken in 2000 rated FDR third. Wilson  was not in the top fourteen. 
The problem with polling people on the presidents is how Americans even know how many presidents America has had, much name all of them. Can you? 
That does bring up a question, however, if historians are indeed liberal were they liberal before they become historians or after?


----------



## eflatminor

regent said:


> The conservative historians rated FDR third best and Wilson eighth best.



"The" conservative historians?

Are you by chance drunk???

Whatever, I really don't give a shit.  I've studied Presidential and economic history.  Wilson and FDR are as bad as it gets.  Unconstitutional meddling, war mongers, racist asshats.  Hey, no wonder you like them!


----------



## Mortimer

the american nazis are the worst traitors, they are anti-american


----------



## JWBooth

jon_berzerk said:


> Aaron Burr



Made up for it by taking out Hamilton.


----------



## regent

eflatminor said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conservative historians rated FDR third best and Wilson eighth best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The" conservative historians?
> 
> Are you by chance drunk???
> 
> Whatever, I really don't give a shit.  I've studied Presidential and economic history.  Wilson and FDR are as bad as it gets.  Unconstitutional meddling, war mongers, racist asshats.  Hey, no wonder you like them!
Click to expand...


I'm glad you have studied presidents and economic history, and your opinion and historical evidence are noted. Powerful stuff.


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since 1948 the noted American *PROGRESSIVE *historians have been judging presidents and they have always rated FDR in the top three and Wilson from fourth to eighth best president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fixed that for you...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Wall Street Journal rated FDR third best and Wilson eleventh best. The conservative historians rated FDR third best and Wilson eighth best. The people in an ABC poll taken in 2000 rated FDR third. Wilson  was not in the top fourteen.
> The problem with polling people on the presidents is how Americans even know how many presidents America has had, much name all of them. Can you?
> That does bring up a question, however, if historians are indeed liberal were they liberal before they become historians or after?
Click to expand...


That is your problem Reggie.  You believe whatever the statist establishment tells you.  You refuse to THINK and logically rationalize the issues...you much rather have that done for you by others.

The statist establishment lies and does so with impunity.  Why have you chosen to believe LIARS?

And no need to repeat yourself about the thousands of historians in love with FDR or Wilson......you apparently fail to recognize that repeating a fallacy ad nauseum, does not make it right or truthful.


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Because he put your grandmother in a camp?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why that is supposed to be some sort of 'crime', since less than half of the Japanese here were American citizens, and they were avid supporters of the Japanese invasions of the rest of Asia and the mass atrocities those vermin committed, and routinely raised and sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to 'support their troops'. It was hardly unreasonable to quarantine them, and there was no time to spend years sorting them all out after they declared war on us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of those deprived of their property, liberty, due process, and thrown into FD-fucking-R's concentration camps were US citizens, douche. _Not one_ Japanese-American was ever convicted of treason, espionage, or sabotage during WWII, unlike German and Italian Americans. If you can't understand what was wrong with that scumbag and his concentration camps then you are no American and you should get the fuck out of my country at once.
Click to expand...


FDR should have known the above right after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor instead of waiting to see how things went. Another mistake FDR made was listening to the Sixth 
Corps commander, DeWitt that warned of sabotage and wanted the exclusion. I mean presidents that listen to their generals after an air attack that almost destroyed their fleet should be less concerned about the nation's safety and more concerned about how they will be criticized later. 
Many wrongs were committed in WWII and that was one, learn to live with it, as many others have. You survived, I survived millions did not. Stiff upper lip and all that.


----------



## regent

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fixed that for you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Wall Street Journal rated FDR third best and Wilson eleventh best. The conservative historians rated FDR third best and Wilson eighth best. The people in an ABC poll taken in 2000 rated FDR third. Wilson  was not in the top fourteen.
> The problem with polling people on the presidents is how Americans even know how many presidents America has had, much name all of them. Can you?
> That does bring up a question, however, if historians are indeed liberal were they liberal before they become historians or after?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is your problem Reggie.  You believe whatever the statist establishment tells you.  You refuse to THINK and logically rationalize the issues...you much rather have that done for you by others.
> 
> The statist establishment lies and does so with impunity.  Why have you chosen to believe LIARS?
> 
> And no need to repeat yourself about the thousands of historians in love with FDR or Wilson......you apparently fail to recognize that repeating a fallacy ad nauseum, does not make it right or truthful.
Click to expand...


True, I have that failing of often believing experts over posters, especially those that tell me to think logically, like  they do. I believe historians know more of history, just as MD's know more of medicine than lay people.  Are college professors now in league with the government to mislead the people? If so why do we allow higher education to exist in America, much less to pay good money to be lied to by college professors?  
Where do you get your truthful historical information?


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why that is supposed to be some sort of 'crime', since less than half of the Japanese here were American citizens, and they were avid supporters of the Japanese invasions of the rest of Asia and the mass atrocities those vermin committed, and routinely raised and sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to 'support their troops'. It was hardly unreasonable to quarantine them, and there was no time to spend years sorting them all out after they declared war on us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of those deprived of their property, liberty, due process, and thrown into FD-fucking-R's concentration camps were US citizens, douche. _Not one_ Japanese-American was ever convicted of treason, espionage, or sabotage during WWII, unlike German and Italian Americans. If you can't understand what was wrong with that scumbag and his concentration camps then you are no American and you should get the fuck out of my country at once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FDR should have known the above right after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor instead of waiting to see how things went. Another mistake FDR made was listening to the Sixth
> Corps commander, DeWitt that warned of sabotage and wanted the exclusion. I mean presidents that listen to their generals after an air attack that almost destroyed their fleet should be less concerned about the nation's safety and more concerned about how they will be criticized later.
> Many wrongs were committed in WWII and that was one, learn to live with it, as many others have. You survived, I survived millions did not. Stiff upper lip and all that.
Click to expand...


Yeah...since FDR was a king or dictator, he could do whatever he wanted....Right?

Do you fail to see how his actions against Japanese Americans was entirely unconstitutional, to say nothing of immoral and tyrannical?

And since when did FDR listen to his commanders?  He fired those who refused to go along with moving our naval base to Pearl Harbor, thus exposing it to foreign attack...as he hoped....then he refused to inform the commanders at Pearl of the coming attack, which he knew was forth coming...and then scapegoated them ruining their careers.

What a great POTUS FDR was.


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conservative historians rated FDR third best and Wilson eighth best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The" conservative historians?
> 
> Are you by chance drunk???
> 
> Whatever, I really don't give a shit.  I've studied Presidential and economic history.  Wilson and FDR are as bad as it gets.  Unconstitutional meddling, war mongers, racist asshats.  Hey, no wonder you like them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm glad you have studied presidents and economic history, and your opinion and historical evidence are noted. Powerful stuff.
Click to expand...




You are the last person who should be relying on such a statement. You haven't demonstrated any study or consideration of history at all. All you've done - all you've ever done - is repeat a logical fallacy over and over and over.


----------



## regent

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of those deprived of their property, liberty, due process, and thrown into FD-fucking-R's concentration camps were US citizens, douche. _Not one_ Japanese-American was ever convicted of treason, espionage, or sabotage during WWII, unlike German and Italian Americans. If you can't understand what was wrong with that scumbag and his concentration camps then you are no American and you should get the fuck out of my country at once.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR should have known the above right after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor instead of waiting to see how things went. Another mistake FDR made was listening to the Sixth
> Corps commander, DeWitt that warned of sabotage and wanted the exclusion. I mean presidents that listen to their generals after an air attack that almost destroyed their fleet should be less concerned about the nation's safety and more concerned about how they will be criticized later.
> Many wrongs were committed in WWII and that was one, learn to live with it, as many others have. You survived, I survived millions did not. Stiff upper lip and all that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah...since FDR was a king or dictator, he could do whatever he wanted....Right?
> 
> Do you fail to see how his actions against Japanese Americans was entirely unconstitutional, to say nothing of immoral and tyrannical?
> 
> And since when did FDR listen to his commanders?  He fired those who refused to go along with moving our naval base to Pearl Harbor, thus exposing it to foreign attack...as he hoped....then he refused to inform the commanders at Pearl of the coming attack, which he knew was forth coming...and then scapegoated them ruining their careers.
> 
> What a great POTUS FDR was.
Click to expand...


Boy, Congress should have investigated the Pearl Harbor attack, think of the anti-FDR things they could have found if only they had run a Congressional investigation. 
As for moving the fleet to Pearl Harbor I always read that it was the State Department that wanted that move not FDR. But who sent the carriers to sea before the attack? Didn't the Court say the DeWitt evacuation was constitutional? 
This is a repeat of stuff that has been done over and over, anything new?


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The" conservative historians?
> 
> Are you by chance drunk???
> 
> Whatever, I really don't give a shit.  I've studied Presidential and economic history.  Wilson and FDR are as bad as it gets.  Unconstitutional meddling, war mongers, racist asshats.  Hey, no wonder you like them!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad you have studied presidents and economic history, and your opinion and historical evidence are noted. Powerful stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the last person who should be relying on such a statement. You haven't demonstrated any study or consideration of history at all. All you've done - all you've ever done - is repeat a logical fallacy over and over and over.
Click to expand...


And that logical fallacy is...?


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad you have studied presidents and economic history, and your opinion and historical evidence are noted. Powerful stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the last person who should be relying on such a statement. You haven't demonstrated any study or consideration of history at all. All you've done - all you've ever done - is repeat a logical fallacy over and over and over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that logical fallacy is...?
Click to expand...




I have explained it to you at least half a dozen times already. If you really are too stupid to retain the information then STFU and go back to chewing your cud.


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the last person who should be relying on such a statement. You haven't demonstrated any study or consideration of history at all. All you've done - all you've ever done - is repeat a logical fallacy over and over and over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that logical fallacy is...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have explained it to you at least half a dozen times already. If you really are too stupid to retain the information then STFU and go back to chewing your cud.
Click to expand...


Well it must have been important to you to bring it up a half dozen times, but I won't coax you.


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that logical fallacy is...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have explained it to you at least half a dozen times already. If you really are too stupid to retain the information then STFU and go back to chewing your cud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it must have been important to you to bring it up a half dozen times, but I won't coax you.
Click to expand...




You are just trying - again - to be a disingenuous douche to avoid the fact that you've got nothing but a logical fallacy upon which to rest your case. You are apparently too stupid to even try to think about it for yourself.


----------



## thanatos144

Rand Paul for endorsing the rino

tapatalk post


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have explained it to you at least half a dozen times already. If you really are too stupid to retain the information then STFU and go back to chewing your cud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it must have been important to you to bring it up a half dozen times, but I won't coax you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are just trying - again - to be a disingenuous douche to avoid the fact that you've got nothing but a logical fallacy upon which to rest your case. You are apparently too stupid to even try to think about it for yourself.
Click to expand...


Hundreds of America's best historians over a time span of almost seventy years have devoted their time and knowledge to rating the presidents, and fortunately they agree with me. Now you want me to disagree with the historians and myself; now that would truly be stupid.


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well it must have been important to you to bring it up a half dozen times, but I won't coax you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are just trying - again - to be a disingenuous douche to avoid the fact that you've got nothing but a logical fallacy upon which to rest your case. You are apparently too stupid to even try to think about it for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hundreds of America's best historians ....
Click to expand...




There he goes again.    Now the approach is to try and defend a logical fallacy rather than thinking for himself.  Pathetic.


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are just trying - again - to be a disingenuous douche to avoid the fact that you've got nothing but a logical fallacy upon which to rest your case. You are apparently too stupid to even try to think about it for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hundreds of America's best historians ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There he goes again.    Now the approach is to try and defend a logical fallacy rather than thinking for himself.  Pathetic.
Click to expand...


Is that your only defense, a logical fallacy? Is the logical fallacy that I used Argument by Authority or hundreds of noted historians as evidence that FDR was rated as America's best president by noted historians? Who better to rate the presidents than historians and experts on presidents?  I didn't use Hedy Lamar or Eli Manning but historians, there were 238 historians in the last poll to be exact. 
And the best you can come up with is the relocation centers and logical fallacy?  I'm sure most historians know of the relocation episode and a number of things that happened during FDR,s four elections and presidential terms but they still rated FDR as America's best president. Must hurt, eh?


----------



## freedombecki

I think betrayal begins within the home. Those who cheat on their spouse and hold public office are the worst kind. It invariably carries over into their public service careers and turns it into disservice, obfuscation, and discredit. Cheating on the spouse is only an indicator. It is not an indictment. 



I'm not terribly fond of Aaron Burr. After he killed Alexander Hamilton in an illegal duel while he was Jefferson's Vice President, he hopped from one get-rich-quick failed schema to another before leaving America for 5 years, almost friendless.

Edit: I just read his bio. Before his wife died, he fathered 2 children with the family maid.


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR should have known the above right after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor instead of waiting to see how things went. Another mistake FDR made was listening to the Sixth
> Corps commander, DeWitt that warned of sabotage and wanted the exclusion. I mean presidents that listen to their generals after an air attack that almost destroyed their fleet should be less concerned about the nation's safety and more concerned about how they will be criticized later.
> Many wrongs were committed in WWII and that was one, learn to live with it, as many others have. You survived, I survived millions did not. Stiff upper lip and all that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...since FDR was a king or dictator, he could do whatever he wanted....Right?
> 
> Do you fail to see how his actions against Japanese Americans was entirely unconstitutional, to say nothing of immoral and tyrannical?
> 
> And since when did FDR listen to his commanders?  He fired those who refused to go along with moving our naval base to Pearl Harbor, thus exposing it to foreign attack...as he hoped....then he refused to inform the commanders at Pearl of the coming attack, which he knew was forth coming...and then scapegoated them ruining their careers.
> 
> What a great POTUS FDR was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boy, Congress should have investigated the Pearl Harbor attack, think of the anti-FDR things they could have found if only they had run a Congressional investigation.
> As for moving the fleet to Pearl Harbor I always read that it was the State Department that wanted that move not FDR. But who sent the carriers to sea before the attack? Didn't the Court say the DeWitt evacuation was constitutional?
> This is a repeat of stuff that has been done over and over, anything new?
Click to expand...


Do you really think an investigation by the State of the State, was going to expose FDR's deceitfulness and corruption?  The State always protects the State first and foremost.  

And FDR pushed for the move to Pearl and he fired the commander who refused to go along with the move.  

Here is a good article for you.  It cites several books on the subject, that you would be wise to obtain.
The Establishment Cover-Up Continues ? LewRockwell.com

Yeah...nothing new here...just ignore the truth and accept lies...and the corruption by the state goes round and round...Funny...sounds just like what the establishment is saying today to protect Obama.


----------



## regent

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...since FDR was a king or dictator, he could do whatever he wanted....Right?
> 
> Do you fail to see how his actions against Japanese Americans was entirely unconstitutional, to say nothing of immoral and tyrannical?
> 
> And since when did FDR listen to his commanders?  He fired those who refused to go along with moving our naval base to Pearl Harbor, thus exposing it to foreign attack...as he hoped....then he refused to inform the commanders at Pearl of the coming attack, which he knew was forth coming...and then scapegoated them ruining their careers.
> 
> What a great POTUS FDR was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, Congress should have investigated the Pearl Harbor attack, think of the anti-FDR things they could have found if only they had run a Congressional investigation.
> As for moving the fleet to Pearl Harbor I always read that it was the State Department that wanted that move not FDR. But who sent the carriers to sea before the attack? Didn't the Court say the DeWitt evacuation was constitutional?
> This is a repeat of stuff that has been done over and over, anything new?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you really think an investigation by the State of the State, was going to expose FDR's deceitfulness and corruption?  The State always protects the State first and foremost.
> 
> And FDR pushed for the move to Pearl and he fired the commander who refused to go along with the move.
> 
> Here is a good article for you.  It cites several books on the subject, that you would be wise to obtain.
> The Establishment Cover-Up Continues ? LewRockwell.com
> 
> Yeah...nothing new here...just ignore the truth and accept lies...and the corruption by the state goes round and round...Funny...sounds just like what the establishment is saying today to protect Obama.
Click to expand...


So when Ike was elected with his Republican Congress certainly the Republicans made a total investigation of Pearl Harbor and what did they find?


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, Congress should have investigated the Pearl Harbor attack, think of the anti-FDR things they could have found if only they had run a Congressional investigation.
> As for moving the fleet to Pearl Harbor I always read that it was the State Department that wanted that move not FDR. But who sent the carriers to sea before the attack? Didn't the Court say the DeWitt evacuation was constitutional?
> This is a repeat of stuff that has been done over and over, anything new?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really think an investigation by the State of the State, was going to expose FDR's deceitfulness and corruption?  The State always protects the State first and foremost.
> 
> And FDR pushed for the move to Pearl and he fired the commander who refused to go along with the move.
> 
> Here is a good article for you.  It cites several books on the subject, that you would be wise to obtain.
> The Establishment Cover-Up Continues ? LewRockwell.com
> 
> Yeah...nothing new here...just ignore the truth and accept lies...and the corruption by the state goes round and round...Funny...sounds just like what the establishment is saying today to protect Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So when Ike was elected with his Republican Congress certainly the Republicans made a total investigation of Pearl Harbor and what did they find?
Click to expand...

 
You are under the mistaken belief that statist Rs would actually seek the truth.  Further proof you are not living in reality.


----------



## regent

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really think an investigation by the State of the State, was going to expose FDR's deceitfulness and corruption?  The State always protects the State first and foremost.
> 
> And FDR pushed for the move to Pearl and he fired the commander who refused to go along with the move.
> 
> Here is a good article for you.  It cites several books on the subject, that you would be wise to obtain.
> The Establishment Cover-Up Continues ? LewRockwell.com
> 
> Yeah...nothing new here...just ignore the truth and accept lies...and the corruption by the state goes round and round...Funny...sounds just like what the establishment is saying today to protect Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when Ike was elected with his Republican Congress certainly the Republicans made a total investigation of Pearl Harbor and what did they find?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are under the mistaken belief that statist Rs would actually seek the truth.  Further proof you are not living in reality.
Click to expand...


So it sounds like the only place Americans can get the truth is on these boards, right? Geez I want to live in reality like you, what's reality like?


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when Ike was elected with his Republican Congress certainly the Republicans made a total investigation of Pearl Harbor and what did they find?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are under the mistaken belief that statist Rs would actually seek the truth.  Further proof you are not living in reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it sounds like the only place Americans can get the truth is on these boards, right? Geez I want to live in reality like you, what's reality like?
Click to expand...


You expose yourself as a fool with posts like this one.

If you bothered to educate yourself on the subject, you would know many experts and historians have exposed FDR for the tyrannical fool and lying cheat he was.   

But you continue to wallow in your ignorance.


----------



## Picaro

regent said:


> So it sounds like the only place Americans can get the truth is on these boards, right? Geez I want to live in reality like you, what's reality like?



Oh come on; he has a point. Having your air bases bombed in surprise attacks, u boats sinking your ships, and having war declared on you was nothing to get alarmed about. Thinking otherwise is just knee jerk reactionary Commie hysteria. We had plenty of time to hold a couple of decades of sensitivity training and diversity appreciation seminars, while waiting for Ron Paul to grow up and lecture us on how isolationism is the best policy n stuff, and hold years of public discussions on books selected from the John Birch Society's approved reading lists. I just can't believe you can't understand that such things are best left to the free market to handle.


----------



## Picaro

Unkotare said:


> _Not one_ Japanese-American was ever convicted of treason, espionage, or sabotage during WWII, unlike German and Italian Americans.



Well, that's because they were relocated and quarantined, idiot. The rest of your post is just the usual psycho revisionist nonsense, so I'll leave you to your group gropes with the other lunatics.


----------



## Unkotare

Picaro said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Not one_ Japanese-American was ever convicted of treason, espionage, or sabotage during WWII, unlike German and Italian Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's because they were relocated and quarantined, idiot.
Click to expand...



By that reasoning, all American citizens should be thrown into concentration camps and crime will be eliminated. What a stroke of genius! Are you really this fucking stupid?



I would ask you why, if it was such a great idea, that every AMERICAN CITIZEN or legal resident of German or Italian descent wasn't rounded up on the East Coast and thrown into concentration camps. After all, a number of them actually did turn out to be traitors (unlike the Japanese Americans who, by contrast, went on to serve in the most decorated unit in US military history fighting for the very country that FDR had hijacked). Relatively few German and Italian Americans got the FDR treatment. I would ask you, but your little pea brain might explode trying to think of a justification.


----------



## regent

Mistakes were made on both sides during this event.


 The real culprit of this episode was America's racial prejudice and fear. Fear was used to inflame the prejudice and too many in America responded. The question today could someone again use fear and prejudice to create another event like this? You bet.


----------



## thanatos144

regent said:


> Mistakes were made on both sides during this event.
> 
> 
> The real culprit of this episode was America's racial prejudice and fear. Fear was used to inflame the prejudice and too many in America responded. The question today could someone again use fear and prejudice to create another event like this? You bet.


FDR emulated Hitler. 


tapatalk post


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> Mistakes were made on both sides during this event.
> 
> 
> The real culprit of this episode was America's racial prejudice and fear. Fear was used to inflame the prejudice and too many in America responded. The question today could someone again use fear and prejudice to create another event like this? You bet.



It happens with regularity.

Obama is an expert at it and his foolish followers buy his BS every time.


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> The question today could someone again use fear and prejudice to create another event like this? You bet.






No.


----------



## regent

thanatos144 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mistakes were made on both sides during this event.
> 
> 
> The real culprit of this episode was America's racial prejudice and fear. Fear was used to inflame the prejudice and too many in America responded. The question today could someone again use fear and prejudice to create another event like this? You bet.
> 
> 
> 
> FDR emulated Hitler.
> 
> /QUOTE]
> Do you mean Hitler let prisoners out of his camps to go to college, he let the prisoners strike, let the prisoners take him to court, let prisoners leave the camp if they moved to a different area?
> I didn't know that, what a guy.
> By the way those students that left the American camps to attend college, could not attend Princeton, MIT or some other colleges because the colleges would not accept them. I mean they were, well you know.
Click to expand...


----------



## Unkotare

I think he meant the part where Hitler deprived a certain class of people - based on ethnicity - of their property and liberty, removed them from their homes, and kept them in camps behind barbed wire with armed guard towers, making it clear they would be shot and killed if they attempted to leave. You know, concentration camps.

I think that's the part he meant.


----------



## Mortimer

if japanese were inprisoned but germans and italians werent it was certainly racism. because japanese were a distinct racial minority, and germans and italians are white.


----------



## Mortimer

also the nazi americans were the biggest traitors, the fascists who supported germany and still do


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> I think he meant the part where Hitler deprived a certain class of people - based on ethnicity - of their property and liberty, removed them from their homes, and kept them in camps behind barbed wire with armed guard towers, making it clear they would be shot and killed if they attempted to leave. You know, concentration camps.
> 
> I think that's the part he meant.



That was the wrong part, but the wrong part is understandable for that time-period.


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think he meant the part where Hitler deprived a certain class of people - based on ethnicity - of their property and liberty, removed them from their homes, and kept them in camps behind barbed wire with armed guard towers, making it clear they would be shot and killed if they attempted to leave. You know, concentration camps.
> 
> I think that's the part he meant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the wrong part, but the wrong part is understandable for that time-period.
Click to expand...




It was never right, you shameless apologist. A real American would know that.


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think he meant the part where Hitler deprived a certain class of people - based on ethnicity - of their property and liberty, removed them from their homes, and kept them in camps behind barbed wire with armed guard towers, making it clear they would be shot and killed if they attempted to leave. You know, concentration camps.
> 
> I think that's the part he meant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the wrong part, but the wrong part is understandable for that time-period.
Click to expand...


That has to be one of the dumbest posts ever on USMB.  

Not only dumb for appeasing tyranny, but also for believing that the American people were somehow different then, so imprisoning Japanese Americans was "understandable."

Wrong is wrong.  There is no way to forgive or defend it.

It is actions like this, by an out of control POTUS, that needs to be roundly condemned...because if not, it will happen again.  IMO it will happen again because of people like you, who accept the lies of the statist establishment.


----------



## Picaro

Unkotare said:


> By that reasoning, all American citizens should be thrown into concentration camps and crime will be eliminated. What a stroke of genius! Are you really this fucking stupid?
> 
> 
> 
> I would ask you why, if it was such a great idea, that every AMERICAN CITIZEN or legal resident of German or Italian descent wasn't rounded up on the East Coast and thrown into concentration camps. After all, a number of them actually did turn out to be traitors (unlike the Japanese Americans who, by contrast, went on to serve in the most decorated unit in US military history fighting for the very country that FDR had hijacked). Relatively few German and Italian Americans got the FDR treatment. I would ask you, but your little pea brain might explode trying to think of a justification.



Meanwhile, in addition to the above breaking news from Tardlandia, the Peanut Gallery might like to read the essay here, which deals with the actual historical context, rather than the usual insipid  blathering from hindsight (and still getting it wrong; hindsight is only '20/20' when combined with sanity), and the wrist slitting angst of assorted neurotic snivelers:

The Internment of the Ethnic Japanese in WWII -- Military Justification?


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think he meant the part where Hitler deprived a certain class of people - based on ethnicity - of their property and liberty, removed them from their homes, and kept them in camps behind barbed wire with armed guard towers, making it clear they would be shot and killed if they attempted to leave. You know, concentration camps.
> 
> I think that's the part he meant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the wrong part, but the wrong part is understandable for that time-period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was never right, you shameless apologist. A real American would know that.
Click to expand...


One of the rules of history is to be aware of judging past values by today's values. Sabotage was always a threat but I'm not inclined to do my homework and research it, but I do know that the FBI was still warning Americans of the sabotage threat as late as 1945. 
Of course living today we now seem to have all the answers to all the past questions.


----------



## gipper

Picaro said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> By that reasoning, all American citizens should be thrown into concentration camps and crime will be eliminated. What a stroke of genius! Are you really this fucking stupid?
> 
> 
> 
> I would ask you why, if it was such a great idea, that every AMERICAN CITIZEN or legal resident of German or Italian descent wasn't rounded up on the East Coast and thrown into concentration camps. After all, a number of them actually did turn out to be traitors (unlike the Japanese Americans who, by contrast, went on to serve in the most decorated unit in US military history fighting for the very country that FDR had hijacked). Relatively few German and Italian Americans got the FDR treatment. I would ask you, but your little pea brain might explode trying to think of a justification.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, in addition to the above breaking news from Tardlandia, the Peanut Gallery might like to read the essay here, which deals with the actual historical context, rather than the usual insipid  blathering from hindsight (and still getting it wrong; hindsight is only '20/20' when combined with sanity), and the wrist slitting angst of assorted neurotic snivelers:
> 
> The Internment of the Ethnic Japanese in WWII -- Military Justification?
Click to expand...


What FDR did was wrong.  It was wrong then.  No appeasing his actions by citing 20/20 hindsight.

Had FDR not been a dictatorial scumbag, but a man who honored and abided by the Constitution, he would have done the just thing.

This does a nice job of explaining it...



> *Japanese Americans, Internment, Democracy, and the U.S. Government*
> 
> By Ryan McMaken
> Friday, February 21st, 2014
> February 19 is the Day of Remembrance for those who wish to recall that on February 19, 1942, President Franklin Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066 authorizing military personnel to lock American of Japanese descent in concentration camps that are often euphemistically called internment camps.
> 
> The internment of the Japanese Americans is one of our greatest examples of how majority rule functions in a democracy. Fueled by the usual war hysteria so often and enthusiastically propagated by the American voter, Roosevelts government was virtually unrestrained in its wartime powers, and its drive to jail innocent Japanese civilians was not just national, but international in scope.
> 
> As Rothbard noted in an article on Peru, the American government wasnt content with merely jailing Americans. No, it was important to actually import people destined for the concentration camps:
> 
> The first Japanese were imported into Peru at the end of the 19th century to work as slaves on the coastal sugar plantations. The Japanese, however, rebelled within weeks, and moved to Lima, where they are now located. Fujimoris parents emigrated to Lima in the mid-1930s where his father, along with other Japanese, created hundreds of successful small businesses.
> 
> After Pearl Harbor, the U.S. government pressured Peru to go to war with Japan, to confiscate Japanese-owned businesses, including the elder Fujimoris tire repair shop, and to ship almost 1,500 Japanese to internment in the U.S. Hence, the Peruvian Indians embrace of Fujimori as a fellow non-white rising up against the Criollos. The fact that Fujimoris immigrant mother does not speak Spanish works in his favor with the Inca masses, who dont speak Spanish either; Spanish is the language of Vargas Llosa and the Criollo conquerors.
> 
> 
> *In California, where the Japanese Americans, like the Japanese Peruvians, were treated like dirt, they set up a large number of highly-successful small business (most notably in small-scale agriculture and plant nurseries). In both cases, the success of the Japanese merely made the whites jealous, and the middle-class Anglos in California decided to wage class warfare on the Japanese immigrants in the early 20th century and passed a series of laws designed to outlaw Japanese-owned businesses. Fortunately, many of their plans failed. But when the opportunity came to ship the competition off to concentration camps, who would complain?*
> 
> Camps helped cripple Japanese business well beyond the end of the war, since as Douglas Carey noted: Over 110,000 Japanese civilians were detained in this way. Not one of them had been accused of any crime. After the war was over, the majority of those detained went home to find their property looted and destroyed.
> 
> *In a democracy, this is of course a win-win situation for the majority. The democratic system ensured that the Japanese, as a small minority, possessed virtually no political power either on the West coast or nationally, and were therefore at the mercy of the state. *The few politicians who provided even mild resistance to stripping the Japanese of all rights, such as Colorado governor Ralph Carr, were promptly voted out of office.
> 
> *The U.S. Government has never repudiated the legal principle behind concentration camps, and maintains the legal right to use them again.* Often, when libertarians or others point out that the United States is not a free country, the defenders of the status quo point to the fact that people can vote. This magical talisman held out by government apologists, known as the vote doesnt seem to have worked out very well for the Japanese Americans during World War II, who also had the vote.
> Japanese Americans, Internment, Democracy, and the U.S. Government :: The Mises Economics Blog: The Circle Bastiat


----------



## Picaro

gipper said:


> What FDR did was wrong.  It was wrong then.  No appeasing his actions by citing 20/20 hindsight.
> 
> Had FDR not been a dictatorial scumbag, but a man who honored and abided by the Constitution, he would have done the just thing.*[*/QUOTE]
> 
> It must be truly horrifying knowing you are just so special and all knowing that no matter what era you born in you would never be susceptible to the prevailing standards of the day.
> 
> In any case, less than half of Japanese in the U.S. were relocated, some 150,000 remained in the Hawaiian Islands, and FDR was just fine, which is why he was elected three times, so I guess you'll just have to take lots and lots of Prozac to get through the days ahead, since history isn't going to change just because you don't like it.


----------



## bendog

Picaro said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> What FDR did was wrong.  It was wrong then.  No appeasing his actions by citing 20/20 hindsight.
> 
> Had FDR not been a dictatorial scumbag, but a man who honored and abided by the Constitution, he would have done the just thing.*[*/QUOTE]
> 
> It must be truly horrifying knowing you are just so special and all knowing that no matter what era you born in you would never be susceptible to the prevailing standards of the day.
> 
> In any case, less than half of Japanese in the U.S. were relocated, some 150,000 remained in the Hawaiian Islands, and FDR was just fine, which is why he was elected three times, so I guess you'll just have to take lots and lots of Prozac to get through the days ahead, since history isn't going to change just because you don't like it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4X, I think.  32, 36, 40 and 44.
Click to expand...


----------



## Unkotare

Picaro said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> By that reasoning, all American citizens should be thrown into concentration camps and crime will be eliminated. What a stroke of genius! Are you really this fucking stupid?
> 
> 
> 
> I would ask you why, if it was such a great idea, that every AMERICAN CITIZEN or legal resident of German or Italian descent wasn't rounded up on the East Coast and thrown into concentration camps. After all, a number of them actually did turn out to be traitors (unlike the Japanese Americans who, by contrast, went on to serve in the most decorated unit in US military history fighting for the very country that FDR had hijacked). Relatively few German and Italian Americans got the FDR treatment. I would ask you, but your little pea brain might explode trying to think of a justification.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile,...the Peanut Gallery might like to read the essay here...
Click to expand...




No "essay" can change the facts, you dimwit, including the FACT that you are an unAmerican apologist for tyranny.


----------



## Unkotare

bendog said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> What FDR did was wrong.  It was wrong then.  No appeasing his actions by citing 20/20 hindsight.
> 
> Had FDR not been a dictatorial scumbag, but a man who honored and abided by the Constitution, he would have done the just thing.*[*/QUOTE]
> 
> It must be truly horrifying knowing you are just so special and all knowing that no matter what era you born in you would never be susceptible to the prevailing standards of the day.
> 
> In any case, less than half of Japanese in the U.S. were relocated, some 150,000 remained in the Hawaiian Islands, and FDR was just fine, which is why he was elected three times, so I guess you'll just have to take lots and lots of Prozac to get through the days ahead, since history isn't going to change just because you don't like it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4X, I think.  32, 36, 40 and 44.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Until he finally took the express elevator to hell.
Click to expand...


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> [...I'm not inclined to do my homework and research it....





Clearly you are not. Nor are you "inclined" to learn from those who have done their homework. Relying on specious excuses and logical fallacy is so much easier...


----------



## PredFan

Barack Hussein Obama.


----------



## gipper

bendog said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> What FDR did was wrong.  It was wrong then.  No appeasing his actions by citing 20/20 hindsight.
> 
> Had FDR not been a dictatorial scumbag, but a man who honored and abided by the Constitution, he would have done the just thing.*[*/QUOTE]
> 
> It must be truly horrifying knowing you are just so special and all knowing that no matter what era you born in you would never be susceptible to the prevailing standards of the day.
> 
> In any case, less than half of Japanese in the U.S. were relocated, some 150,000 remained in the Hawaiian Islands, and FDR was just fine, which is why he was elected three times, so I guess you'll just have to take lots and lots of Prozac to get through the days ahead, since history isn't going to change just because you don't like it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4X, I think.  32, 36, 40 and 44.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah he was elected four times, so fools conclude he must be GREAT...and thus excuse his numerous tyrannical and deceitful actions.
Click to expand...


----------



## gipper

Picaro said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> What FDR did was wrong.  It was wrong then.  No appeasing his actions by citing 20/20 hindsight.
> 
> Had FDR not been a dictatorial scumbag, but a man who honored and abided by the Constitution, he would have done the just thing.*[*/QUOTE]
> 
> It must be truly horrifying knowing you are just so special and all knowing that no matter what era you born in you would never be susceptible to the prevailing standards of the day.
> 
> In any case, less than half of Japanese in the U.S. were relocated, some 150,000 remained in the Hawaiian Islands, and FDR was just fine, which is why he was elected three times, so I guess you'll just have to take lots and lots of Prozac to get through the days ahead, since history isn't going to change just because you don't like it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.
> 
> Just follow the rule of law.  It is just that simple.
> 
> What you need to do is evaluate the entirety of FDR's time as POTUS.  For starters, his administration was overrun with commies, who took orders from FDR's BFF...Stalin.  Extraordinary....that not one commie was rounded up and interned during the war, for the spying for the USSR.
> 
> Plus few Germans and Italians were rounded up and interned...
> 
> The press and the state DEMONIZED the Japanese with unbelievable racist hatred...making it easy for FDR to round them up.  Anyone who spoke out about the injustice, was destroyed by the State.  A real leader stands for the rule of law and justice...a scumbag does not.
> 
> To say nothing of FDR's deceitful efforts to set Japan up for the attack on Pearl.  He knew about it before it happened and refused to warn the commanders, then scapegoated them.  He then demanded unconditional surrender, resulting in huge death tolls for Japan and the USA.  He ignored surrender overtures by Japan, which began as early as 1943.
> 
> When you look at the entire picture, it is most ugly for your beloved FDR.
Click to expand...


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> [...I'm not inclined to do my homework and research it....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you are not. Nor are you "inclined" to learn from those who have done their homework. Relying on specious excuses and logical fallacy is so much easier...
Click to expand...


I was in a history class when we did a quick study of this event. It is much more than we see on these boards, the hostility of the farmers in California, the Daughters of the Golden West and others including DeWitt, even the hostility of the California government  toward the Japanese Americans was pretty overwhelming. In short many wanted the Japanese to leave California. 
America also had to believe that sabotage was a possibility. Today, on these boards we could be posting as to why FDR, with so many Japanese on the west coast didn't take proper measures to prevent sabotage. Who knew then what posters know today. 
But also at the time the plight of the Japanese-Americans was secondary to America's larger problem, a major war. And can you believe that major war seemed even larger than the childish whining we hear in the background.


----------



## Unkotare

And the shameless apologist continues to throw away any scraps of character and morality he might ever have had.


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> And the shameless apologist continues to throw away any scraps of character and morality he might ever have had.



It always comes back to personal attack doesn't it, which is a sign of what?


----------



## S.J.

gipper said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> What FDR did was wrong.  It was wrong then.  No appeasing his actions by citing 20/20 hindsight.
> 
> Had FDR not been a dictatorial scumbag, but a man who honored and abided by the Constitution, he would have done the just thing.*[*/QUOTE]
> 
> It must be truly horrifying knowing you are just so special and all knowing that no matter what era you born in you would never be susceptible to the prevailing standards of the day.
> 
> In any case, less than half of Japanese in the U.S. were relocated, some 150,000 remained in the Hawaiian Islands, and FDR was just fine, which is why he was elected three times, so I guess you'll just have to take lots and lots of Prozac to get through the days ahead, since history isn't going to change just because you don't like it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.
> 
> Just follow the rule of law.  It is just that simple.
> 
> What you need to do is evaluate the entirety of FDR's time as POTUS.  For starters, his administration was overrun with commies, who took orders from FDR's BFF...Stalin.  Extraordinary....that not one commie was rounded up and interned during the war, for the spying for the USSR.
> 
> Plus few Germans and Italians were rounded up and interned...
> 
> The press and the state DEMONIZED the Japanese with unbelievable racist hatred...making it easy for FDR to round them up.  Anyone who spoke out about the injustice, was destroyed by the State.  A real leader stands for the rule of law and justice...a scumbag does not.
> 
> To say nothing of FDR's deceitful efforts to set Japan up for the attack on Pearl.  He knew about it before it happened and refused to warn the commanders, then scapegoated them.  He then demanded unconditional surrender, resulting in huge death tolls for Japan and the USA.  He ignored surrender overtures by Japan, which began as early as 1943.
> 
> When you look at the entire picture, it is most ugly for your beloved FDR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm no FDR fan but I think the hatred for the Japanese might have had something to do with the cowardly attack on PEARL HARBOR!!!  Yeah, the Germans were the enemy too but they didn't launch a sneak attack on us the way the nips did.  But I do agree that FDR was a communist scumfuck (but not as bad as Obama).
Click to expand...


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the shameless apologist continues to throw away any scraps of character and morality he might ever have had.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It always comes back to personal attack doesn't it, which is a sign of what?
Click to expand...



Your lack of character and inability to use reason and logic?


----------



## Unkotare

S.J. said:


> I'm no FDR fan but I think the hatred for the Japanese might have had something to do with the cowardly attack on PEARL HARBOR!!!





Which had what to do with the AMERICAN CITIZENS that villainous fuck FDR threw into concentration camps?


----------



## S.J.

Unkotare said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm no FDR fan but I think the hatred for the Japanese might have had something to do with the cowardly attack on PEARL HARBOR!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which had what to do with the AMERICAN CITIZENS that villainous fuck FDR threw into concentration camps?
Click to expand...

I wasn't defending FDR, stupid.  Japs attacked us, Americans hated Japs as a result, Japanese Americans paid the price.  I'm not saying it was right, I'm just stating the obvious, not surprising that you missed it.


----------



## gipper

S.J. said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.
> 
> Just follow the rule of law.  It is just that simple.
> 
> What you need to do is evaluate the entirety of FDR's time as POTUS.  For starters, his administration was overrun with commies, who took orders from FDR's BFF...Stalin.  Extraordinary....that not one commie was rounded up and interned during the war, for the spying for the USSR.
> 
> Plus few Germans and Italians were rounded up and interned...
> 
> The press and the state DEMONIZED the Japanese with unbelievable racist hatred...making it easy for FDR to round them up.  Anyone who spoke out about the injustice, was destroyed by the State.  A real leader stands for the rule of law and justice...a scumbag does not.
> 
> To say nothing of FDR's deceitful efforts to set Japan up for the attack on Pearl.  He knew about it before it happened and refused to warn the commanders, then scapegoated them.  He then demanded unconditional surrender, resulting in huge death tolls for Japan and the USA.  He ignored surrender overtures by Japan, which began as early as 1943.
> 
> When you look at the entire picture, it is most ugly for your beloved FDR.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm no FDR fan but I think the hatred for the Japanese might have had something to do with the cowardly attack on PEARL HARBOR!!!  Yeah, the Germans were the enemy too but they didn't launch a sneak attack on us the way the nips did.  But I do agree that FDR was a communist scumfuck (but not as bad as Obama).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again we need to analyze the history BEFORE Pearl Harbor was attacked, to get the full picture...and the picture is damning for FDR.
> 
> You will get no dispute from me about the horrendous actions of the Japanese government and military during WWII and their aggression at Pearl Harbor.  The crimes they committed might only be exceeded by Nazi Germany and Stalin's USSR.
> 
> It is well known that FDR refused to negotiate any trade deals with Japan, froze Japanese assets in the USA, when a Japanese leader tried in secret to come to some kind of mutual agreement, FDR exposed him in the press.
> 
> There is much more.
> 
> FDR did all he could to push Japan into attacking the USA.  He knew the American people were adamantly against any involvement in WWII (after the debacle that was WWI)...so logically, he wanted to position Japan into attacking, so that American public opinion would flip and he would have his war....just as Lincoln, McKinley, and Wilson did before him.
> 
> Add to the mix, his complete subservience to Stalin...surrounded by Staliniist spies who were desperate for America to war with Germany...FDR provided much war material to Stalin at the detriment of the American war effort.  Once war began with Japan, it was likely war with Japan's ally, Germany, would occur and did.
> 
> He knew Japan was to attack both Pearl and the Philippines before they occurred, but refused to warn both bases.  He purposely had the western naval based moved from San Francisco to Pearl Harbor, where it was exposed to attacked.  He fired the naval commander who refused to go along with the move to Pearl.
> 
> It goes on and on.........................................
> 
> Americans need to wake up to the fact that many of our past and current leaders are liars and criminals.  Americans are a great people in a great nation, just terribly lead.
Click to expand...


----------



## Unkotare

S.J. said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm no FDR fan but I think the hatred for the Japanese might have had something to do with the cowardly attack on PEARL HARBOR!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which had what to do with the AMERICAN CITIZENS that villainous fuck FDR threw into concentration camps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't defending FDR, stupid.  Japs attacked us, Americans hated Japs as a result, Japanese Americans paid the price.  I'm not saying it was right, I'm just stating the obvious, not surprising that you missed it.
Click to expand...



The USS Reuben James was sunk by German U-boats before Pearl Harbor. All German Americans were not rounded up on the East Coast as a result. You know why. The childish thrill you get from typing "Japs" over and over is illustrative.


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which had what to do with the AMERICAN CITIZENS that villainous fuck FDR threw into concentration camps?
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't defending FDR, stupid.  Japs attacked us, Americans hated Japs as a result, Japanese Americans paid the price.  I'm not saying it was right, I'm just stating the obvious, not surprising that you missed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The USS Reuben James was sunk by German U-boats before Pearl Harbor. All German Americans were not rounded up on the East Coast as a result. You know why. The childish thrill you get from typing "Japs" over and over is illustrative.
Click to expand...



And the Japanese sank the USS Panay and no Japanese were rounded up. Might be a difference between sinking a gun boat and bombing Pearl Harbor.


----------



## Unkotare

Again the apologist attempts to justify the unjustifiable.


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> Again the apologist attempts to justify the unjustifiable.



I'm not apologizing for Japan sinking the USS Panay, Japan apologized later. 
Your theme song of the wrongs done to a people gets tiresome and whiny; it is not the only wrong ever done in history, and in comparison some people really have a gripe that make yours pretty insignificant.


----------



## Unkotare

What's tiresome are your clumsy attempts at rationalizing and apologizing because you are stuck on hero worship of a fucking scumbag, like you're some morally confused, historically ignorant teenage girl. Do you have a glossy poster of the 'dreamy' FDR on your wall, missy? You'll debase yourself to any degree to play the apologist for the worst villain ever to sully the office of President of the United States.


----------



## Bush92

http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/gty_democratic_national_convention_Setup_thg_120903_wg.jpg

The symbol of the democratic party is now an "O", see any symbolic similarities.


----------



## Picaro

S.J. said:


> I'm no FDR fan but I think the hatred for the Japanese might have had something to do with the cowardly attack on PEARL HARBOR!!!



Yes. I posted a link somewhere back there that has a great rundown on all the stuff going on at  the time. They  made it easy to dislike and be suspicious of them, especially when the attack on Pearl came along. If you have time you might find it informative; or maybe you're already familiar with it, I don't know.




> Yeah, the Germans were the enemy too but they didn't launch a sneak attack on us the way the nips did.



We rounded up Germans and Italians as well; the difference was most of them that immigrated to the U.S. assimilated into the general culture, while the Issei and many Nisei didn't and purposely remained aloof; many never applied for citizenship or naturalization, either. They were also mostly fanatic supporters of Japan and the Emperor in the years leading up to Pearl, while most German and Italian Americans weren't supportive of Hitler or Mussolini.



> But I do agree that FDR was a communist scumfuck (but not as bad as Obama).



Whatever.


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> What's tiresome are your clumsy attempts at rationalizing and apologizing because you are stuck on hero worship of a fucking scumbag, like you're some morally confused, historically ignorant teenage girl. Do you have a glossy poster of the 'dreamy' FDR on your wall, missy? You'll debase yourself to any degree to play the apologist for the worst villain ever to sully the office of President of the United States.



Why haven't you communicated this priceless evaluation to the 238 noted historians and presidential experts that recently rated FDR as America's best president, even above Lincoln. I'm sure all those historians that have rated FDR over the years would love to get receive your  evidence to the contrary. Imagine their humiliation when they see what you send them.  It's probably too late to let that entire generation that voted for FDR four times in on your opinion but please try. I hope you let us know their reactions and chagrin when they get your historical evidence.


----------



## thanatos144

Every modern democrat and public school board.


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's tiresome are your clumsy attempts at rationalizing and apologizing because you are stuck on hero worship of a fucking scumbag, like you're some morally confused, historically ignorant teenage girl. Do you have a glossy poster of the 'dreamy' FDR on your wall, missy? You'll debase yourself to any degree to play the apologist for the worst villain ever to sully the office of President of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why haven't you communicated this priceless evaluation to the 238 noted historians and presidential experts that recently rated FDR as America's best president, even above Lincoln. I'm sure all those historians that have rated FDR over the years would love to get receive your  evidence to the contrary. Imagine their humiliation when they see what you send them.  It's probably too late to let that entire generation that voted for FDR four times in on your opinion but please try. I hope you let us know their reactions and chagrin when they get your historical evidence.
Click to expand...


Much like you have failed to accept the truth, statist historians will not accept it either.  You are brainwashed by the state and don't know it.

If historians were to write the history of Big Ears, no doubt it would be favorable.  Statists are everywhere and they are in total control of our universities.  Not much different than during FDR's time.

FDR was Stalin's stooge.  We know this now, but it was not know when the fool was alive.  Could be BO is a Marxist stooge or an Islamic stooge...we will find out years from now, but the statists will always love him, just as the love FDR.


----------



## thanatos144

Bergdahl


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's tiresome are your clumsy attempts at rationalizing and apologizing because you are stuck on hero worship of a fucking scumbag, like you're some morally confused, historically ignorant teenage girl. Do you have a glossy poster of the 'dreamy' FDR on your wall, missy? You'll debase yourself to any degree to play the apologist for the worst villain ever to sully the office of President of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why haven't you communicated this priceless evaluation to the 238 noted historians and presidential experts that recently rated FDR as America's best president...
Click to expand...




There you go again...

As soon as you run up against your inability to defend your position, you fall back on logical fallacy AGAIN.


----------



## Unkotare

Picaro said:


> We rounded up Germans and Italians as well; the difference was most of them that immigrated to the U.S. assimilated into the general culture, while the Issei and many Nisei didn't and purposely remained aloof; many never applied for citizenship or naturalization, either. They were also mostly fanatic supporters of Japan and the Emperor in the years leading up to Pearl, while most German and Italian Americans weren't supportive of Hitler or Mussolini.




And yet the only ACTUAL instances of espionage, treason, and sabotage came from Americans of German or Italian background (among others), and NOT from a single Japanese American. By way of contrast, Japanese Americans took it upon themselves to prove, with their actions and their lives, that they were as brave and loyal as any American ever was. 

As for "supportive of Hitler or Mussolini," why don't you take the time to study a little American history, champ?


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> We rounded up Germans and Italians as well; the difference was most of them that immigrated to the U.S. assimilated into the general culture, while the Issei and many Nisei didn't and purposely remained aloof; many never applied for citizenship or naturalization, either. They were also mostly fanatic supporters of Japan and the Emperor in the years leading up to Pearl, while most German and Italian Americans weren't supportive of Hitler or Mussolini.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the only ACTUAL instances of espionage, treason, and sabotage came from Americans of German or Italian background (among others), and NOT from a single Japanese American. By way of contrast, Japanese Americans took it upon themselves to prove, with their actions and their lives, that they were as brave and loyal as any American ever was.
> 
> As for "supportive of Hitler or Mussolini," why don't you take the time to study a little American history, champ?
Click to expand...


In the request for military volunteers there was some variation in number the signup was 97 percent at Mindoka and 62% at Tule Lake. The first call for military volunteers it was hoped 3500 would volunteer for the military but only 1200 volunteered.   Was Tule Lake a problem?


----------



## Ernie S.

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's tiresome are your clumsy attempts at rationalizing and apologizing because you are stuck on hero worship of a fucking scumbag, like you're some morally confused, historically ignorant teenage girl. Do you have a glossy poster of the 'dreamy' FDR on your wall, missy? You'll debase yourself to any degree to play the apologist for the worst villain ever to sully the office of President of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why haven't you communicated this priceless evaluation to the 238 noted historians and presidential experts that recently rated FDR as America's best president, even above Lincoln. I'm sure all those historians that have rated FDR over the years would love to get receive your  evidence to the contrary. Imagine their humiliation when they see what you send them.  It's probably too late to let that entire generation that voted for FDR four times in on your opinion but please try. I hope you let us know their reactions and chagrin when they get your historical evidence.
Click to expand...

Link to poll with names of said 238 noted historians and presidential experts, please.


----------



## bendog

Ernie S. said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's tiresome are your clumsy attempts at rationalizing and apologizing because you are stuck on hero worship of a fucking scumbag, like you're some morally confused, historically ignorant teenage girl. Do you have a glossy poster of the 'dreamy' FDR on your wall, missy? You'll debase yourself to any degree to play the apologist for the worst villain ever to sully the office of President of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why haven't you communicated this priceless evaluation to the 238 noted historians and presidential experts that recently rated FDR as America's best president, even above Lincoln. I'm sure all those historians that have rated FDR over the years would love to get receive your  evidence to the contrary. Imagine their humiliation when they see what you send them.  It's probably too late to let that entire generation that voted for FDR four times in on your opinion but please try. I hope you let us know their reactions and chagrin when they get your historical evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link to poll with names of said 238 noted historians and presidential experts, please.
Click to expand...


And we want to see their birthcertificates, too.  Not copies.  The originals.  On paper.


----------



## Picaro

Unkotare said:


> As for "supportive of Hitler or Mussolini," why don't you take the time to study a little American history, champ?



Well, obviously American history up to now is completely false or something, so shouldn't we all wait until you and Gipper come out with your comprehensive study and analysis of American history?

Can you give us a publication date on this? I'm sure the world is anxious for the enlightenment.


----------



## Picaro

bendog said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why haven't you communicated this priceless evaluation to the 238 noted historians and presidential experts that recently rated FDR as America's best president, even above Lincoln. I'm sure all those historians that have rated FDR over the years would love to get receive your  evidence to the contrary. Imagine their humiliation when they see what you send them.  It's probably too late to let that entire generation that voted for FDR four times in on your opinion but please try. I hope you let us know their reactions and chagrin when they get your historical evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Link to poll with names of said 238 noted historians and presidential experts, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we want to see their birthcertificates, too.  Not copies.  The originals.  On paper.
Click to expand...


CrusaderFrank and Gipper will then inform us all of the Communist infiltration of all the birth certificate bureaus, and how that proves nothing.


----------



## Unkotare

History News Network | The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics


Americans For Hitler - America in WWII magazine



Ignorance is often a choice, champ.


----------



## Picaro

Did you write those? I don't recall claiming there were no Americans who supported Hitler or Mussloni, or ever bringing up 'eugenics', but you're the expert, in your own mind at least.


----------



## Unkotare

H-Net Reviews


https://suite.io/matthew-ferraton/2t4s2fv


----------



## Unkotare

Picaro said:


> Did you write those? I don't recall claiming there were no Americans who supported Hitler or Mussloni...




Go back and read your own posts if you're too stupid to recall what you said (and what it meant).


----------



## Uncensored2008

If history is written by the victors, then why are Communists like Howard Zinn rewriting American history?


----------



## regent

Uncensored2008 said:


> If history is written by the victors, then why are Communists like Howard Zinn rewriting American history?



Can't argue with that, it's overwhelming evidence. Of something?


----------



## Uncensored2008

regent said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If history is written by the victors, then why are Communists like Howard Zinn rewriting American history?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't argue with that, it's overwhelming evidence. Of something?
Click to expand...


Did America really win the Cold War? Perhaps our Premier Obama can explain this...


----------



## Picaro

Unkotare said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you write those? I don't recall claiming there were no Americans who supported Hitler or Mussloni...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go back and read your own posts if you're too stupid to recall what you said (and what it meant).
Click to expand...


Ok, I did, and of course you didn't, or you need glasses ?

When is your definitive history book coming out, again? I can't imagine that every university and textbook publisher on the planet hasn't been begging you for it and offering you and Gipper dept. chairs and the like. Another Commie plot, no doubt. Damn that FDR.


----------



## Unkotare

Picaro said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you write those? I don't recall claiming there were no Americans who supported Hitler or Mussloni...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go back and read your own posts if you're too stupid to recall what you said (and what it meant).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, I did...
Click to expand...




So now are you going to spin, and parse, and lie, or are you going to try and behave like a reasonable interlocutor? I think I can guess which it will be.


----------



## Picaro

Unkotare said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go back and read your own posts if you're too stupid to recall what you said (and what it meant).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I did...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now are you going to spin, and parse, and lie, or are you going to try and behave like a reasonable interlocutor? I think I can guess which it will be.
Click to expand...


So you can't  cite anything to back up your claims. Okay.


----------



## Unkotare

Picaro said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I did...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now are you going to spin, and parse, and lie, or are you going to try and behave like a reasonable interlocutor? I think I can guess which it will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't  cite anything to back up your claims. Okay.
Click to expand...



As I expected, now begins the dance... 

I cited your own post, moron. Ok, now comes the spin and parse and pretending...


----------



## Picaro

Unkotare said:


> As I expected, now begins the dance...
> 
> I cited your own post, moron. Ok, now comes the spin and parse and pretending...



Really? The post you claimed to have cited doesn't say anything about eugenics, or where I said there were no Germans or Americans who supported Hitler or Mussolini. It's pretty stupid to lie about such things on message boards, when the posts are there for everybody to see, but thankfully you don't mind lying anyway and proving you have zero credibility.

Thanks for playing.


----------



## Picaro

Uncensored2008 said:


> If history is written by the victors, then why are Communists like Howard Zinn rewriting American history?



I would guess for the same reasons 'Libertarians' write their own American 'histories'; to make up nonsense  political propaganda.


----------



## Unkotare

Picaro said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I expected, now begins the dance...
> 
> I cited your own post, moron. Ok, now comes the spin and parse and pretending...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? The post you claimed to have cited doesn't say anything about eugenics, or where I said there were no Germans or Americans who supported Hitler or Mussolini. It's pretty stupid to lie about such things on message boards, when the posts are there for everybody to see, but thankfully you don't mind lying anyway and proving you have zero credibility.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...



Your dancing sucks. Go get some self respect, you disingenuous douche.


----------



## regent

Picaro said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If history is written by the victors, then why are Communists like Howard Zinn rewriting American history?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would guess for the same reasons 'Libertarians' write their own American 'histories'; to make up nonsense  political propaganda.
Click to expand...


There is some money in writing history that meets left wing or right wing political beliefs. Those histories that simply recite facts with the various interpretations of those facts are usually textbooks and usually boring. Is that the trouble with history; unless it has a political bias it is boring, and worse for some, doesn't sell?


----------



## Uncensored2008

regent said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If history is written by the victors, then why are Communists like Howard Zinn rewriting American history?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would guess for the same reasons 'Libertarians' write their own American 'histories'; to make up nonsense  political propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is some money in writing history that meets left wing or right wing political beliefs. Those histories that simply recite facts with the various interpretations of those facts are usually textbooks and usually boring. Is that the trouble with history; unless it has a political bias it is boring, and worse for some, doesn't sell?
Click to expand...


Howard Zinn is used in nearly all American Schools, yet "A Peoples History" is a complete fabrication.

This isn't a matter of selling to your base on Amazon, this is outright fabrication as the basis of what we teach children - gross indoctrination. These are the types of things the Soviets did.


----------



## Picaro

Unkotare said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I expected, now begins the dance...
> 
> I cited your own post, moron. Ok, now comes the spin and parse and pretending...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? The post you claimed to have cited doesn't say anything about eugenics, or where I said there were no Germans or Americans who supported Hitler or Mussolini. It's pretty stupid to lie about such things on message boards, when the posts are there for everybody to see, but thankfully you don't mind lying anyway and proving you have zero credibility.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your dancing sucks. Go get some self respect, you disingenuous douche.
Click to expand...


Cite those posts you allege exist any time.

 We'll wait.


----------



## Picaro

Uncensored2008 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would guess for the same reasons 'Libertarians' write their own American 'histories'; to make up nonsense  political propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is some money in writing history that meets left wing or right wing political beliefs. Those histories that simply recite facts with the various interpretations of those facts are usually textbooks and usually boring. Is that the trouble with history; unless it has a political bias it is boring, and worse for some, doesn't sell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Howard Zinn is used in nearly all American Schools, yet "A Peoples History" is a complete fabrication.
> 
> This isn't a matter of selling to your base on Amazon, this is outright fabrication as the basis of what we teach children - gross indoctrination. These are the types of things the Soviets did.
Click to expand...


Zinn was never used in my schools, and they aren't used in my local schools. I guess we're flukes. There is a copy of it at our local library, along with a few dozen others by various authors; it never seems to be checked out, though. Maybe that's because all the school students already have it for their textbooks.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Thunderbird said:


> Many possibilities: Aldrich Ames, the Rosenbergs, or Benedict Arnold himself.  My nominee is Harry Dexter White.
> 
> quote: 1. White was the real author of the Morgenthau plan to "turn Germany into a potato field," which when leaked, united non-Nazis with Nazis, stiffened resistance, and prolonged the war.
> 2. White used his position in the Treasury Department to develop a hostile U.S. policy toward Japan. The reason was to distract Japan from their plans to attack the Soviet Union and draw the U.S. into the war as an ally with the Soviet Union.
> 3. White was the author of an extreme ultimatum that Japan could not comply with in the days just prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
> 4. White delayed financial support mandated by law to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist Chinese government causing the triumph of Mao Tse-Tung's Communist Chinese government.
> 5. White was instrumental in handing over the Allied Military mark printing plates to the Soviets. This caused a $250,000,000 deficit in the occupational government budget paid out by the U.S. Treasury. This in effect amounted to the US taxpayer paying the salaries of Soviet occupation troops at a time when US/Soviet relations were deteriorating precisely because of the presence and behavior of Soviet occupation forces in Eastern Europe.
> 
> LINK



pretty much every president since herbert hoover fits that bill so take your pick of any of them.any one of them would be the right answer.carter and JFK being the two exceptions.cant say that I am democrat either cause as you noticed,i did not leave out LBJ,slick willie clinton or Obomination.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Picaro said:


> Zinn was never used in my schools, and they aren't used in my local schools. I guess we're flukes.






There is a copy of it at our local library, along with a few dozen others by various authors; it never seems to be checked out, though. Maybe that's because all the school students already have it for their textbooks.[/QUOTE]

Zinn's Marxist screed is used in over 1500 high schools nation wide.

Mitch Daniels Was Right | National Review Online


{Objectivity is impossible, Zinn once remarked, and it is also undesirable. That is, if it were possible it would be undesirable, because if you have any kind of a social aim, if you think history should serve society in some way; should serve the progress of the human race; should serve justice in some way, then it requires that you make your selection on the basis of what you think will advance causes of humanity.

History serving a social aim other than the preservation or interpretation of a historical record is precisely what we get in A Peoples History of the United States. Howard Zinns 776 page tome, which after selling more than a million copies, has been recently re-released in a hardback edition.
- See more at: http://hnn.us/article/1493#sthash.4YsQ41c4.dpuf}


----------



## Picaro

Uncensored2008 said:


> Zinn's Marxist screed is used in over 1500 high schools nation wide.
> 
> Mitch Daniels Was Right | National Review Online
> 
> 
> {Objectivity is impossible, Zinn once remarked, and it is also undesirable. That is, if it were possible it would be undesirable, because if you have any kind of a social aim, if you think history should serve society in some way; should serve the progress of the human race; should serve justice in some way, then it requires that you make your selection on the basis of what you think will advance causes of humanity.
> 
> History serving a social aim other than the preservation or interpretation of a historical record is precisely what we get in A Peoples History of the United States. Howard Zinns 776 page tome, which after selling more than a million copies, has been recently re-released in a hardback edition.
> - See more at: http://hnn.us/article/1493#sthash.4YsQ41c4.dpuf}



There are around 18,000 or so high schools, so I guess you still have time to launch a crusade and book burning campaign or something.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Picaro said:


> There are around 18,000 or so high schools, so I guess you still have time to launch a crusade or something.



Use of Zinn is concentrated on the Coasts and in Chicago - exactly where one would expect. But your implying that Zinn isn't a standard text was false.

IF you were to find that the Bible is used as the history text in 1500 American Public High Schools, would this bother you? Why or why not?


----------



## Picaro

regent said:


> There is some money in writing history that meets left wing or right wing political beliefs. Those histories that simply recite facts with the various interpretations of those facts are usually textbooks and usually boring. Is that the trouble with history; unless it has a political bias it is boring, and worse for some, doesn't sell?



My current fave is the evangelical atheists who run around claiming this or that about the 'Founding Fathers', and end up citing Jefferson almost exclusively, or Thomas Paine, who wasn't a 'Founding Father'. Jefferson wasn't at the Constitutional Convention, in any case, he was in Europe at the time. I had thought there were more 'Founding Fathers', around 75 or so, but now I know there were only a couple, and they both apparently agreed that the word 'of' means 'from', and they hoped homosexuality and Islam would become more popular than Christianity.


----------



## Picaro

Uncensored2008 said:


> Use of Zinn is concentrated on the Coasts and in Chicago - exactly where one would expect. But your implying that Zinn isn't a standard text was false.



What you said:



> *Howard Zinn is used in nearly all American Schools*.


Did you and Unktare go to the same school?



> IF you were to find that the Bible is used as the history text in 1500 American Public High Schools, would this bother you? Why or why not?


No, it wouldn't bother me at all. Why?  I'm not terrified of Christians. Are you? Do they make scary faces at you and stuff?


----------



## Unkotare

Picaro said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? The post you claimed to have cited doesn't say anything about eugenics, or where I said there were no Germans or Americans who supported Hitler or Mussolini. It's pretty stupid to lie about such things on message boards, when the posts are there for everybody to see, but thankfully you don't mind lying anyway and proving you have zero credibility.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your dancing sucks. Go get some self respect, you disingenuous douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cite those posts you allege exist any time.
> 
> We'll wait.
Click to expand...



What you will do is continue to dance and avoid taking responsibility for your own words like the shameless punk you are.


----------



## Picaro

Unkotare said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your dancing sucks. Go get some self respect, you disingenuous douche.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cite those posts you allege exist any time.
> 
> We'll wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What you will do is continue to dance and avoid taking responsibility for your own words like the shameless punk you are.
Click to expand...


I see you haven't found those posts of mine yet.

Do you think 'posting last' will mean you 'won' or something? Do you hope posting a lot of inane juvenile insults will magically make you less of a liar?


----------



## whitehall

It's easy to determine the worst school shooting in history or the worst serial killer. Just count the victims. How do you determine the "worst" traitor? Traditional history lists Ben Arnold as the most notorious traitor in US history but his treason didn't impact the Revolution that much. He was just a symbol. What does it take to be a notorious traitor? Aldrich Ames qualifies in the survey based on the number of deaths per dollar for his treachery. His treason might have impacted the duration of the "cold war" so he is up there on the list. News anchor Dan Rather tried to influence the future of the United States with obviously fake documents designed to undermine a presidential election. He did it for money and political ideology. He is on the list. The Rosenbergs gave US nuclear technology to the Russians for political ideology but Bill Clinton gave China ICBM technology for money.


----------



## S.J.

Nothing worse than the traitor being our own president.  Therefore, Obama is the worst, selling us out to our enemies and undermining our economy from within.


----------



## Unkotare

Picaro said:


> [
> 
> I see you haven't found those posts of mine yet.





You found them. You referred to them yourself. You know what you said, you know what it meant. You were proven to have made a ridiculously false statement and ever since you have been demonstrating your lack of character. You have no self respect.


----------



## jasonnfree

Bush92 said:


> http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/gty_democratic_national_convention_Setup_thg_120903_wg.jpg
> 
> The symbol of the democratic party is now an "O", see any symbolic similarities.



That was the war in which your father Prescott was indicted for trading with the enemy, wasn't it?


----------



## LA RAM FAN

jasonnfree said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/gty_democratic_national_convention_Setup_thg_120903_wg.jpg
> 
> The symbol of the democratic party is now an "O", see any symbolic similarities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the war in which your father Prescott was indicted for trading with the enemy, wasn't it?
Click to expand...


as I said before,every president since Hoover with the exception of JFK,has a very strong case for the biggest traiter that ever lived.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

S.J. said:


> Nothing worse than the traitor being our own president.  Therefore, Obama is the worst, selling us out to our enemies and undermining our economy from within.



every president since Hoover except for Jfk,has sold us out to the enemy and undermined our economy from within so you could make a case for any of them.


----------



## S.J.

9/11 inside job said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing worse than the traitor being our own president.  Therefore, Obama is the worst, selling us out to our enemies and undermining our economy from within.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> every president since Hoover except for Jfk,has sold us out to the enemy and undermined our economy from within so you could make a case for any of them.
Click to expand...

Remember the Bay of Pigs?


----------



## Crystalclear

9/11 inside job said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/gty_democratic_national_convention_Setup_thg_120903_wg.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> The symbol of the democratic party is now an "O", see any symbolic similarities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the war in which your father Prescott was indicted for trading with the enemy, wasn't it?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as I said before,every president since Hoover with the exception of JFK,has a very strong case for the biggest traiter that ever lived.
Click to expand...


Especially after 9/11, the Bush and Obama administration.


----------



## Unkotare

I've seen nothing offered that comes close to knocking that scum FDR from the top spot in the Hall of Shame.


----------



## TheIceMan

martybegan said:


> Jefferson Davis.



Bullshit.  Try again.


----------



## thanatos144

TheIceMan said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson Davis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  Try again.
Click to expand...


So you dont consider trying to destroy a country through civil war being a traitor?


----------



## gipper

If we can include groups of people as traitors, then IMHO it is the elite Left, who wishes and plans for the total destruction of the Constitution, individual liberty, rule of law and free market capitalism.

As a group, they are the most traitorous....and this includes their many duped followers.


----------



## TheIceMan

thanatos144 said:


> TheIceMan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson Davis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you dont consider trying to destroy a country through civil war being a traitor?
Click to expand...


By that standard, I guess we could the founding fathers the greatest traitors, right?  Committed treason against our king and all that.  

Only difference is, the FF's won.  The South didn't.  The Colonies had NO legal right to declare themselves independent.  The CSA had EVERY legal right at the time.  A Supreme Court ruling after the fact just covers the US's ass but doesn't change a thing at time.

Not to mention a "civil war" (talk about an oxymoron) was not a plan.  Secession was.  The US brought the war.


----------



## Unkotare

:lol"

The reb revisionists practice absurdist humor. 

Chewin' on sour grapes over an indefensible war that was never theirs and was lost a very long time ago. The ghosts of those confederate traitors haven't asked you to try and justify their treason, so stop wasting your time.


----------



## TheIceMan

Unkotare said:


> :lol"
> 
> The reb revisionists practice absurdist humor.
> 
> Chewin' on sour grapes over an indefensible war that was never theirs and was lost a very long time ago. The ghosts of those confederate traitors haven't asked you to try and justify their treason, so stop wasting your time.



Want to skirt the topic a little more with a lame attempt at deflection?  

They justified their actions by law.  Nothing you've got can argue with that.


----------



## Meathead

Unkotare said:


> :lol"
> 
> The reb revisionists practice absurdist humor.
> 
> Chewin' on sour grapes over an indefensible war that was never theirs and was lost a very long time ago. The ghosts of those confederate traitors haven't asked you to try and justify their treason, so stop wasting your time.


You have an infinitesimally small grasp of US history. You need to go back to the foundation of the United States to the Battle of Fort Sumter and then get back to us before you start labelling the  traitors of US history. I expect it might be an epiphany for you.


----------



## thanatos144

Meathead said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> :lol"
> 
> The reb revisionists practice absurdist humor.
> 
> Chewin' on sour grapes over an indefensible war that was never theirs and was lost a very long time ago. The ghosts of those confederate traitors haven't asked you to try and justify their treason, so stop wasting your time.
> 
> 
> 
> You have an infinitesimally small grasp of US history. You need to go back to the foundation of the United States to the Battle of Fort Sumter and then get back to us before you start labelling the  traitors of US history. I expect it might be an epiphany for you.
Click to expand...


The confederates started a war hoping to destroy a country over nothing more then a evil practice like slavery that  is treason.  

tapatalk post


----------



## Dot Com

Jonathon Pollard


----------



## TheIceMan

thanatos144 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> :lol"
> 
> The reb revisionists practice absurdist humor.
> 
> Chewin' on sour grapes over an indefensible war that was never theirs and was lost a very long time ago. The ghosts of those confederate traitors haven't asked you to try and justify their treason, so stop wasting your time.
> 
> 
> 
> You have an infinitesimally small grasp of US history. You need to go back to the foundation of the United States to the Battle of Fort Sumter and then get back to us before you start labelling the  traitors of US history. I expect it might be an epiphany for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The confederates started a war hoping to destroy a country over nothing more then a evil practice like slavery that  is treason.
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


What country?  

The FF's started a war because they didn't want to pay taxes to the King.  All this thread does is point out that to the victor goes the spoils.

The CSA  had every right to do what they did.  They just lost a war of attrition.


----------



## Meathead

thanatos144 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> :lol"
> 
> The reb revisionists practice absurdist humor.
> 
> Chewin' on sour grapes over an indefensible war that was never theirs and was lost a very long time ago. The ghosts of those confederate traitors haven't asked you to try and justify their treason, so stop wasting your time.
> 
> 
> 
> You have an infinitesimally small grasp of US history. You need to go back to the foundation of the United States to the Battle of Fort Sumter and then get back to us before you start labelling the  traitors of US history. I expect it might be an epiphany for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The confederates started a war hoping to destroy a country over nothing more then a evil practice like slavery that  is treason.
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...

I shall fall short of labelling you as a dingbat. However, you are coming very close to being one through you ignorance of American. WTF is wrong with public education? Are they unable to teach history?


----------



## thanatos144

TheIceMan said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have an infinitesimally small grasp of US history. You need to go back to the foundation of the United States to the Battle of Fort Sumter and then get back to us before you start labelling the  traitors of US history. I expect it might be an epiphany for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The confederates started a war hoping to destroy a country over nothing more then a evil practice like slavery that  is treason.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What country?
> 
> The FF's started a war because they didn't want to pay taxes to the King.  All this thread does is point out that to the victor goes the spoils.
> 
> The CSA  had every right to do what they did.  They just lost a war of attrition.
Click to expand...


No they didn't.  They started a war for selfish evil reasons. They were nothing like the founders. 

tapatalk post


----------



## thanatos144

Meathead said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have an infinitesimally small grasp of US history. You need to go back to the foundation of the United States to the Battle of Fort Sumter and then get back to us before you start labelling the  traitors of US history. I expect it might be an epiphany for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The confederates started a war hoping to destroy a country over nothing more then a evil practice like slavery that  is treason.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I shall fall short of labelling you as a dingbat. However, you are coming very close to being one through you ignorance of American. WTF is wrong with public education? Are they unable to teach history?
Click to expand...


Excuse me?  I know history. You apparently don't 

tapatalk post


----------



## TheIceMan

thanatos144 said:


> TheIceMan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The confederates started a war hoping to destroy a country over nothing more then a evil practice like slavery that  is treason.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What country?
> 
> The FF's started a war because they didn't want to pay taxes to the King.  All this thread does is point out that to the victor goes the spoils.
> 
> The CSA  had every right to do what they did.  They just lost a war of attrition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they didn't.  They started a war for selfish evil reasons. They were nothing like the founders.
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


Think.  The FF's started a war for selfish reasons.  Evil is a matter of conjecture.  They were EXACTLY like the founders.


----------



## Unkotare

Meathead said:


> You have an infinitesimally small grasp of US history.






That's funny, since I probably know more about the subject than you know about _anything_.


----------



## Unkotare

TheIceMan said:


> They justified their actions by law.  Nothing you've got can argue with that.




History argues with that, actual written law argues with that, and the US Supreme Court argues with that. Go find another windmill, Quixote.


----------



## Meathead

Unkotare said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have an infinitesimally small grasp of US history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny, since I probably know more about the subject than you know about _anything_.
Click to expand...

Then why in the world do you come up with some of the most ignorant posts almost completely lacking in historical perspective?

Sorry, not buying it. But who cares?


----------



## Unkotare

Meathead said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have an infinitesimally small grasp of US history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny, since I probably know more about the subject than you know about _anything_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why in the world do you come up with some of the most ignorant posts almost completely lacking in historical perspective?
Click to expand...



I wouldn't. Revisionist nonsense isn't "historical perspective, Meatwad.


----------



## Meathead

Unkotare said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny, since I probably know more about the subject than you know about _anything_.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why in the world do you come up with some of the most ignorant posts almost completely lacking in historical perspective?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't. Revisionist nonsense isn't "historical perspective, Meatwad.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a conditional. It is especially appalling given that we are discussing the history of your own country, I assume.

Read, and stop making a fool of yourself:

States' rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## thanatos144

TheIceMan said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheIceMan said:
> 
> 
> 
> What country?
> 
> The FF's started a war because they didn't want to pay taxes to the King.  All this thread does is point out that to the victor goes the spoils.
> 
> The CSA  had every right to do what they did.  They just lost a war of attrition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't.  They started a war for selfish evil reasons. They were nothing like the founders.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think.  The FF's started a war for selfish reasons.  Evil is a matter of conjecture.  They were EXACTLY like the founders.
Click to expand...


Slavery is evil and that isn't conjecture.  You van try and lie about it but the truth is still the truth. History didn't change because you wish it too. How idiots like you can idolize the co federated is beyond me but I am also a republican not a racist 

tapatalk post


----------



## Unkotare

Meathead said:


> Read, and stop making a fool of yourself





Take your own advice. Ask someone to help you look up the Force Bill and Texas v. White, then STFU for a while.


Oh, and if you really want to "stop making a fool of yourself," don't try to use Wikipedia as a 'source,' professor.


----------



## TheIceMan

Unkotare said:


> TheIceMan said:
> 
> 
> 
> They justified their actions by law.  Nothing you've got can argue with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History argues with that, actual written law argues with that, and the US Supreme Court argues with that. Go find another windmill, Quixote.
Click to expand...


Incorrect.  As previously pointed out, only an after the fact Supreme Court ruling made secession illegal to cover their butts.  Then they backdated it.

Up to that point, no legal wording made secession illegal, and in fact, the CSA were not the first to threaten it.  They were the first to try an carry it out.  

In both cases, the military victors decided who was "right" and who was "wrong".  Had nothing to do with actually being in the right.


----------



## JWBooth

TheIceMan said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheIceMan said:
> 
> 
> 
> They justified their actions by law.  Nothing you've got can argue with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History argues with that, actual written law argues with that, and the US Supreme Court argues with that. Go find another windmill, Quixote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect.  As previously pointed out, only an after the fact Supreme Court ruling made secession illegal to cover their butts.  Then they backdated it.
> 
> Up to that point, no legal wording made secession illegal, and in fact, the CSA were not the first to threaten it.  They were the first to try an carry it out.
> 
> In both cases, the military victors decided who was "right" and who was "wrong".  Had nothing to do with actually being in the right.
Click to expand...


The SC was packed with a majority of Radical Republican appointees. The decision was guaranteed before it ever reached the court.


----------



## TheIceMan

That and they didn't want to pay White, who in Texas V White 1868 wanted US dollars for his Confederate ones.


----------



## Unkotare

TheIceMan said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheIceMan said:
> 
> 
> 
> They justified their actions by law.  Nothing you've got can argue with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History argues with that, actual written law argues with that, and the US Supreme Court argues with that. Go find another windmill, Quixote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect.  As previously pointed out, only an after the fact Supreme Court ruling made secession illegal to cover their butts.  Then they backdated it.
> 
> Up to that point, no legal wording made secession illegal, and in fact, the CSA were not the first to threaten it.  They were the first to try an carry it out.
> 
> In both cases, the military victors decided who was "right" and who was "wrong".  Had nothing to do with actually being in the right.
Click to expand...



Seems you missed a few posts. Go back and read again. Your little attempt at revisionism is falling apart on you.


----------



## Unkotare

JWBooth said:


> TheIceMan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> History argues with that, actual written law argues with that, and the US Supreme Court argues with that. Go find another windmill, Quixote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.  As previously pointed out, only an after the fact Supreme Court ruling made secession illegal to cover their butts.  Then they backdated it.
> 
> Up to that point, no legal wording made secession illegal, and in fact, the CSA were not the first to threaten it.  They were the first to try an carry it out.
> 
> In both cases, the military victors decided who was "right" and who was "wrong".  Had nothing to do with actually being in the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC was packed with a majority of Radical Republican appointees. The decision was guaranteed before it ever reached the court.
Click to expand...




It's funniest when the wannabe rebs' argument falls apart and they start dancing and spinning faster and faster to try and hold it together. It's like they are trying oh-so-hard to hold water in their bitter little hands.


----------



## TheIceMan

Unkotare said:


> TheIceMan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> History argues with that, actual written law argues with that, and the US Supreme Court argues with that. Go find another windmill, Quixote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.  As previously pointed out, only an after the fact Supreme Court ruling made secession illegal to cover their butts.  Then they backdated it.
> 
> Up to that point, no legal wording made secession illegal, and in fact, the CSA were not the first to threaten it.  They were the first to try an carry it out.
> 
> In both cases, the military victors decided who was "right" and who was "wrong".  Had nothing to do with actually being in the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Seems you missed a few posts. Go back and read again. Your little attempt at revisionism is falling apart on you.
Click to expand...


I'm revising nothing.  Neither am I going to continue to pursue a circular argument.  I am as historically correct as you believe you are.  We aren't getting past that.

Enjoy.


----------



## Indofred

A traitor, in this case, would be some who betrayed America, thus its people.
One has to consider pointless wars that have killed a lot of Americans for stupid political ideals or gain by oil and arms companies.
If a president causing the deaths of thousands of his own people is the act of a traitor, you have a few people to think about.
Bush has to be well up the list, who else?


----------



## Unkotare

TheIceMan said:


> I am as historically correct as you believe you are.  We aren't getting past that.
> 
> Enjoy.





You are not correct, you are merely (for whatever strange reason) emotionally vested in defending those who, in the name of perpetuating evil, wrought much death and destruction on our country. Fortunately, the traitors lost and the Union prevailed. You should be very grateful.


----------



## TheIceMan

Unkotare said:


> TheIceMan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am as historically correct as you believe you are.  We aren't getting past that.
> 
> Enjoy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not correct, you are merely (for whatever strange reason) emotionally vested in defending those who, in the name of perpetuating evil, wrought much death and destruction on our country. Fortunately, the traitors lost and the Union prevailed. You should be very grateful.
Click to expand...


Who's emotionally invested?  Seems to me you're the one that's all giddy that the Union won and I should be happy.

Try addressing the topic.  The Founding Father's committed treason against their King.  The CSA legally left a union they voluntarily joined.

Going off on a tangent into left field does not an argument make.  

So, I bid you _adieu_.  Feel free to live in your own little fantasy.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Who was the worst traitor in history: was it Bowe Bergdahl?


----------



## S.J.

Uncensored2008 said:


> Who was the worst traitor in history: was it Bowe Bergdahl?


No, it's the Kenyan bastard that released 5 terrorists to get him back.


----------



## Crystalclear

S.J. said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who was the worst traitor in history: was it Bowe Bergdahl?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's the Kenyan bastard that released 5 terrorists to get him back.
Click to expand...


No, a president that let an American who fought for his country die abroad is a worse president.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Crystalclear said:


> No, a president that let an American who fought for his country die abroad is a worse president.



You're clear on the fact that Bergdahl deserted, right Comrade? We used to SHOOT people who did what Bergdahl did, not release known terrorists to bring them home...


----------



## Unkotare

TheIceMan said:


> So, I bid you _adieu_.




I don't blame you for tucking tail and running. The traitors of the confederacy eventually knew when it was time to quit as well.


----------



## TheIceMan

Unkotare said:


> TheIceMan said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, I bid you _adieu_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't blame you for tucking tail and running. The traitors of the confederacy eventually knew when it was time to quit as well.
Click to expand...


You are meaningless to me.  So is your revisionist history.  So indoctrinated the truth zooms over your head.

I'll debate with people who can think, not automatons spouting rhetoric.  

I don't run from a fucking thing.  Nor do I waste my time beating my head against a brick wall.  Been there, done that.  Doesn't work.

Maybe you'll grow up someday too.


----------



## Rogue 9

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin has already elaborated.
> 
> Why do you think we were named "The United States Of America?" Was it because George Washington established an empire where once colonies had stood? Trading the central authority of the British Crown for the central authority of Washington?  Or was it that 13 autonomous states, each with an independent government, elected from the people therein, formed a voluntary union for common defense and to arbitrate disputes of trade?
> 
> Because, IF this were a union, than any member can leave at any time. If it is an empire, then the sovereign will bring force of arms and call the attempt of people to govern themselves "treason" and "sedition."
> 
> 
> 
> Its basically a fairly simple concept. And the constitution makes absolutely no provision for secession. Marty is completely correct in all of his points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why doesn't the 10th Amendment apply to secession?
Click to expand...

Because it says this:  





> 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.


But Article IV says this:  





> The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States


So defining the borders of the United States is delegated to the Congress, which means the Tenth Amendment does not cover it.


Uncensored2008 said:


> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, a president that let an American who fought for his country die abroad is a worse president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're clear on the fact that Bergdahl deserted, right Comrade? We used to SHOOT people who did what Bergdahl did, not release known terrorists to bring them home...
Click to expand...

You're clear on the fact that we give people trials before convicting them of crimes, right?  The United States has made prisoner exchanges before for soldiers that we then tried for crimes when we got them back; you still don't abandon them to the enemy.


----------



## Unkotare

TheIceMan said:


> I don't run from a fucking thing.





Oh, sorry. I guess you just crawl away on your belly like a beaten dog, the way the confederate traitors finally had to. It was laudable that the average foot soldier from the South was shown respect and given a second chance. It was well-intentioned but perhaps overly magnanimous that the leaders of the traitorous rebellion for the most part did not end up with longer necks. 


Keep crawling until you find someone who will buy your revisionist bullshit, wannabe-reb.


----------



## Unkotare

Rogue 9 said:


> You're clear on the fact that we give people trials before convicting them of crimes, right?





Unless you're obama playing 'Pong' with killer drones, right?


----------



## Rogue 9

Unkotare said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're clear on the fact that we give people trials before convicting them of crimes, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you're obama playing 'Pong' with killer drones, right?
Click to expand...

Not to defend the behavior, but they weren't convicted as such.  "Don't exchange for him because he's a deserter!" depends on assuming a criminal conviction - and that this conviction justifies leaving him with the Taliban rather than administering the prescribed punishment by our own hands, which is cowardly at best.  Taking potshots at enemy combatants and leaders in a war zone is hardly that, though the haphazard approach is scandalous in itself - but not for the same reason.


----------



## Unkotare

Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | theguardian.com


----------



## TheIceMan

Unkotare said:


> Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | theguardian.com



A legal memo from the Obama administration.  Wow.  Is this deflection supposed to support your losing history argument?  A "chilling legal meom" from a proven liar.

Would you like to borrow an extra shovel and one of my apprentices to help you dig that hole, or what?


----------



## Unkotare

TheIceMan said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | theguardian.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A legal memo from the Obama administration.  Wow.  Is this deflection supposed to support your losing history argument?
Click to expand...



You already declared surrender on that 'argument,' wannabe-reb. Crawl along now, loser.


----------



## TheIceMan

Unkotare said:


> TheIceMan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't run from a fucking thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, sorry. I guess you just crawl away on your belly like a beaten dog, the way the confederate traitors finally had to. It was laudable that the average foot soldier from the South was shown respect and given a second chance. It was well-intentioned but perhaps overly magnanimous that the leaders of the traitorous rebellion for the most part did not end up with longer necks.
> 
> 
> Keep crawling until you find someone who will buy your revisionist bullshit, wannabe-reb.
Click to expand...


So you're now down to nothing but personal attacks?

I've been places you've only seen in movies, kitten.  Hope you get over whatever's ailing you and have a good day.


----------



## TruthSeeker56

If there are people in here who have a SHRED of honesty and objectivity, the OBVIOUS answer to the question is.............

The worst traitor in U.S. history is BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA.

He should be immediately arrested and charged with treason and sedition, along with most of his staff and cabinet.


----------



## Unkotare

TheIceMan said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheIceMan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't run from a fucking thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, sorry. I guess you just crawl away on your belly like a beaten dog, the way the confederate traitors finally had to. It was laudable that the average foot soldier from the South was shown respect and given a second chance. It was well-intentioned but perhaps overly magnanimous that the leaders of the traitorous rebellion for the most part did not end up with longer necks.
> 
> 
> Keep crawling until you find someone who will buy your revisionist bullshit, wannabe-reb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're now down to nothing but personal attacks?
> 
> I've been places you've only seen in movies...
Click to expand...




I've never seen 'Earnest Goes to Drunken, Ignorant, Bitter Revisionist Picnic," so maybe I haven't seen those places you've been, champ.


----------



## Rogue 9

TruthSeeker56 said:


> If there are people in here who have a SHRED of honesty and objectivity, the OBVIOUS answer to the question is.............
> 
> The worst traitor in U.S. history is BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA.
> 
> He should be immediately arrested and charged with treason and sedition, along with most of his staff and cabinet.


On what, specific, charges?  If you think he's guilty of treason, you should be able to provide the Constitutionally required evidence for conviction on the charge.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Rogue 9 said:


> TruthSeeker56 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there are people in here who have a SHRED of honesty and objectivity, the OBVIOUS answer to the question is.............
> 
> The worst traitor in U.S. history is BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA.
> 
> He should be immediately arrested and charged with treason and sedition, along with most of his staff and cabinet.
> 
> 
> 
> On what, specific, charges?  If you think he's guilty of treason, you should be able to provide the Constitutionally required evidence for conviction on the charge.
Click to expand...


"Impeach Obama for violation of 18 U.S. Code § 875."


----------



## S.J.

Uncensored2008 said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TruthSeeker56 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there are people in here who have a SHRED of honesty and objectivity, the OBVIOUS answer to the question is.............
> 
> The worst traitor in U.S. history is BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA.
> 
> He should be immediately arrested and charged with treason and sedition, along with most of his staff and cabinet.
> 
> 
> 
> On what, specific, charges?  If you think he's guilty of treason, you should be able to provide the Constitutionally required evidence for conviction on the charge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Impeach Obama for violation of 18 U.S. Code § 875."
Click to expand...

Good luck finding any Democrats with enough integrity to vote to impeach the traitor.  They would rather see this country collapse than do anything that would reflect negatively on their party.


----------



## gipper

S.J. said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> On what, specific, charges?  If you think he's guilty of treason, you should be able to provide the Constitutionally required evidence for conviction on the charge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Impeach Obama for violation of 18 U.S. Code § 875."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good luck finding any Democrats with enough integrity to vote to impeach the traitor.  They would rather see this country collapse than do anything that would reflect negatively on their party.
Click to expand...


Agreed.

And another good reason to terminate political parties.


----------



## mamooth

ODS rots both the brain and the soul, as the ODS kooks on this thread illustrate. Look at them here, the way they insist on flaunting their deviant lifestyle in everyone's faces. Now, I have no trouble with whatever perversions the ODS kooks enjoy amongst themselves, but they need to keep it among themselves.


----------



## Uncensored2008

S.J. said:


> Good luck finding any Democrats with enough integrity to vote to impeach the traitor.  They would rather see this country collapse than do anything that would reflect negatively on their party.



He asked for specifics, I gave him specifics. Obama is guilty of the felony of interstate extortion for the "Operation Choke Point" conspiracy that black mailed legal businesses conducting business with other legal businesses who were targeted enemies of the Obama criminal gang. Specifically ammunition manufacturers.

Obama is absolutely guilty.


----------



## Uncensored2008

mamooth said:


> ODS rots both the brain and the soul, as the ODS kooks on this thread illustrate. Look at them here, the way they insist on flaunting their deviant lifestyle in everyone's faces. Now, I have no trouble with whatever perversions the ODS kooks enjoy amongst themselves, but they need to keep it among themselves.



I couldn't understand you. Try taking Obama's cock out of your mouth and then repeat your statement.


----------



## Unkotare

gipper said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Impeach Obama for violation of 18 U.S. Code § 875."
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck finding any Democrats with enough integrity to vote to impeach the traitor.  They would rather see this country collapse than do anything that would reflect negatively on their party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> And another good reason to terminate political parties.
Click to expand...



That in itself would be a violation of the Constitution. No getting around the fact that voters have to be informed and responsible. If the majority of citizens are too stupid to understand that and/or too lazy to give a shit, then we have only ourselves to blame.


----------



## regent

Limbaugh claims Democrats are goading Republicans to impeach Obama because Democrats believe impeachment  will come back to bite Republicans. In any case, impeachment is not a legal process, impeachment is a political process no law need be broken. The Court has said, however, impeachment must follow the Constitutional procedure. 
Republicans own the House, they have the votes to impeach Obama tomorrow. Are Republican afraid to impeach Obama because it will hurt Republicans?  Is impeachment talk just more political bravado talk?


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck finding any Democrats with enough integrity to vote to impeach the traitor.  They would rather see this country collapse than do anything that would reflect negatively on their party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> And another good reason to terminate political parties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That in itself would be a violation of the Constitution. No getting around the fact that voters have to be informed and responsible. If the majority of citizens are too stupid to understand that and/or too lazy to give a shit, then we have only ourselves to blame.
Click to expand...


The framers never wanted political parties and the Constitution was not written with political parties in mind. Madison believed there were so many factions that they would cancel each other, but the irony is that political parties grew over the ratification of the Constitution. The Constitution also made multiple parties difficult.


----------



## Uncensored2008

regent said:


> Limbaugh claims Democrats are goading Republicans to impeach Obama because Democrats believe impeachment  will come back to bite Republicans. In any case, impeachment is not a legal process, impeachment is a political process no law need be broken. The Court has said, however, impeachment must follow the Constitutional procedure.
> Republicans own the House, they have the votes to impeach Obama tomorrow. Are Republican afraid to impeach Obama because it will hurt Republicans?  Is impeachment talk just more political bravado talk?



I think they will wait until February, when they control both the House AND the Senate. Impeachement without a conviction is worthless.

And we ALL KNOW that Obama could rape and murder a small boy on national TV, not a single democrat in the Senate (or on USMB) would support removing him from office. democrat hold party above all. The party of sociopaths will not follow laws and have zero integrity.


----------



## regent

Uncensored2008 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Limbaugh claims Democrats are goading Republicans to impeach Obama because Democrats believe impeachment  will come back to bite Republicans. In any case, impeachment is not a legal process, impeachment is a political process no law need be broken. The Court has said, however, impeachment must follow the Constitutional procedure.
> Republicans own the House, they have the votes to impeach Obama tomorrow. Are Republican afraid to impeach Obama because it will hurt Republicans?  Is impeachment talk just more political bravado talk?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think they will wait until February, when they control both the House AND the Senate. Impeachement without a conviction is worthless.
> 
> And we ALL KNOW that Obama could rape and murder a small boy on national TV, not a single democrat in the Senate (or on USMB) would support removing him from office. democrat hold party above all. The party of sociopaths will not follow laws and have zero integrity.
Click to expand...



The people choose the president and not the Congress. To impeach a president, the people elected, the crime should be of something of vital importance, insanity, treason not mistakes or policy the opposing party doesn't approve. 
The real judges in an impeachment are the people, the voters, and it might not be a wise move on the Republican's part to impeach Obama, and Republicans know it. If congress believes Obama is doing a bad job that's up to the voter's, not the Congress. In short, Congress would be taking away from the people their choice for president, because the Congress doesn't  approve of the voter's choice.  
But talk of impeachment is easy and no president has been removed by the process, yet a number of times there has been talk of impeachment and nothing.


----------



## Uncensored2008

regent said:


> The people choose the president and not the Congress.



You should huff less spray paint.

Who do you think "chooses" congress, if not the people?



> To impeach a president, the people elected, the crime should be of something of vital importance, insanity, treason not mistakes or policy the opposing party doesn't approve.



I realize that the democratic party is dedicated to the revocation of the United States Constitution in favor of dictatorship; but until you succeed in your quest, impeachment will be for high crimes and misdemeanor. 

Obama is guilty of both. Obama is the most corrupt POTUS in history, and in reality runs a criminal mob, rather than an administration.



> The real judges in an impeachment are the people, the voters, and it might not be a wise move on the Republican's part to impeach Obama, and Republicans know it. If congress believes Obama is doing a bad job that's up to the voter's, not the Congress. In short, Congress would be taking away from the people their choice for president, because the Congress doesn't  approve of the voter's choice.



I realize that you have no knowledge of the American Republic, you are a democrat after all. Ignorance is the foundation of your party.

But the judges in an impeachment are the justices of the supreme court, with the Chief Justice acting as trial judge.



> But talk of impeachment is easy and no president has been removed by the process, yet a number of times there has been talk of impeachment and nothing.



Here are a couple of facts. first, no president in history has as openly violated laws as Obama. He obviously believes laws are for the peasants, and he is above them. A belief that you clearly share.

In my sig I list federal law that Obama has broken, and is irrefutably proven. So congress has high crimes to charge the crook with. When the Republican Senate is sworn in next January, the prospect of removing Obama from office becomes a reality. 

Reasons to NOT impeach are political fall out. The media is mostly just part of the democratic party. NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN are just extensions of the DNC. The little Goebbels of the media will engage in demagoguery without restraint. Removing Obama will only serve to put Biden in office.And lastly, the GOP will control the Senate, but a 2/3rds majority is needed for conviction, as I said, there is no such thing as a democrat with integrity, so the only way the dims will go along is if the political pressure makes it unavoidable.

Reasons to impeach are that the process will drive home the depth of the criminal acts of this administration. Obama is more Mafia Don than he is president. Impeachment will result in Eric Holder going to prison, regardless of the outcome with Obama. Holder will be exposed and there will be no choice but to prosecute Obama's Shock Collar. The criminal use of the IRS dragged before the nation every day will make it more difficult for the IRS to enforce the ACA. A competent impeachment will ensure the democrat lose in 2016.


----------



## Picaro

Uncensored2008 said:


> Here are a couple of facts. first, no president in history has as openly violated laws as Obama.



Actually Thomas Jefferson openly violated many himself, and then of course Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican President, violated nearly all of them.



> He obviously believes laws are for the peasants, and he is above them. A belief that you clearly share.



This description fits every Republican President as well as most politicians who ever existed in the U.S. Obama isn't anything special.


----------



## S.J.

Picaro said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are a couple of facts. first, no president in history has as openly violated laws as Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Thomas Jefferson openly violated many himself, and then of course Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican President, violated nearly all of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He obviously believes laws are for the peasants, and he is above them. A belief that you clearly share.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This description fits every Republican President as well as most politicians who ever existed in the U.S. Obama isn't anything special.
Click to expand...

Bullshit.  Obama doesn't just do things that are Constitutionally questionable, he flat out violates it and he does it often.  It's one scandal after another, and the only reason the "scandals" are called scandals instead of crimes is because they stonewall the investigations.  They wouldn't be able to stonewall them if they didn't have a majority in the Senate, which is very likely to change in November.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Picaro said:


> Actually Thomas Jefferson openly violated many himself, and then of course Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican President, violated nearly all of them.



While one can argue that Jefferson violated his Republican priceless, the claim is he broke laws is a bit of a stretch.

Lincoln is a different story, though I hold that Obama has abused his authority even to a greater extent than Lincoln did.



> This description fits every Republican President as well as most politicians who ever existed in the U.S. Obama isn't anything special.



That is like saying that a petty criminal is no different than a mob boss. Obama has taken the imperial presidency to levels never seen before.


----------



## regent

Uncensored2008 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people choose the president and not the Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should huff less spray paint.
> 
> Who do you think "chooses" congress, if not the people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To impeach a president, the people elected, the crime should be of something of vital importance, insanity, treason not mistakes or policy the opposing party doesn't approve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I realize that the democratic party is dedicated to the revocation of the United States Constitution in favor of dictatorship; but until you succeed in your quest, impeachment will be for high crimes and misdemeanor.
> 
> Obama is guilty of both. Obama is the most corrupt POTUS in history, and in reality runs a criminal mob, rather than an administration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The real judges in an impeachment are the people, the voters, and it might not be a wise move on the Republican's part to impeach Obama, and Republicans know it. If congress believes Obama is doing a bad job that's up to the voter's, not the Congress. In short, Congress would be taking away from the people their choice for president, because the Congress doesn't  approve of the voter's choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I realize that you have no knowledge of the American Republic, you are a democrat after all. Ignorance is the foundation of your party.
> 
> But the judges in an impeachment are the justices of the supreme court, with the Chief Justice acting as trial judge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But talk of impeachment is easy and no president has been removed by the process, yet a number of times there has been talk of impeachment and nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here are a couple of facts. first, no president in history has as openly violated laws as Obama. He obviously believes laws are for the peasants, and he is above them. A belief that you clearly share.
> 
> In my sig I list federal law that Obama has broken, and is irrefutably proven. So congress has high crimes to charge the crook with. When the Republican Senate is sworn in next January, the prospect of removing Obama from office becomes a reality.
> 
> Reasons to NOT impeach are political fall out. The media is mostly just part of the democratic party. NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN are just extensions of the DNC. The little Goebbels of the media will engage in demagoguery without restraint. Removing Obama will only serve to put Biden in office.And lastly, the GOP will control the Senate, but a 2/3rds majority is needed for conviction, as I said, there is no such thing as a democrat with integrity, so the only way the dims will go along is if the political pressure makes it unavoidable.
> 
> Reasons to impeach are that the process will drive home the depth of the criminal acts of this administration. Obama is more Mafia Don than he is president. Impeachment will result in Eric Holder going to prison, regardless of the outcome with Obama. Holder will be exposed and there will be no choice but to prosecute Obama's Shock Collar. The criminal use of the IRS dragged before the nation every day will make it more difficult for the IRS to enforce the ACA. A competent impeachment will ensure the democrat lose in 2016.
Click to expand...


All opinion. 
Any president that has been labeled a "strong president" has been accused of violating the Constitution, the laws of the land, and not eating his veggies. History books list the transgressions of these strong presidents, and  none have ever been removed by the impeachment process. But an impeachment question for you, what is a "high crime?" Where in American law books do we find high crime?


----------



## Uncensored2008

regent said:


> All opinion.
> Any president that has been labeled a "strong president" has been accused of violating the Constitution, the laws of the land, and not eating his veggies. History books list the transgressions of these strong presidents, and  none have ever been removed by the impeachment process. But an impeachment question for you, what is a "high crime?" Where in American law books do we find high crime?



Constitutional process is not an opinion.

Further, I'm not speaking of Obama's violations of the Constitution, I am pointing out that he is guilty of felony acts.

Obama is a criminal - that is a statement of fact.


----------



## regent

Uncensored2008 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> All opinion.
> Any president that has been labeled a "strong president" has been accused of violating the Constitution, the laws of the land, and not eating his veggies. History books list the transgressions of these strong presidents, and  none have ever been removed by the impeachment process. But an impeachment question for you, what is a "high crime?" Where in American law books do we find high crime?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Constitutional process is not an opinion.
> 
> Further, I'm not speaking of Obama's violations of the Constitution, I am pointing out that he is guilty of felony acts.
> 
> Obama is a criminal - that is a statement of fact.
Click to expand...


So what  court found Obama guilty of crimes?


----------



## Uncensored2008

regent said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> All opinion.
> Any president that has been labeled a "strong president" has been accused of violating the Constitution, the laws of the land, and not eating his veggies. History books list the transgressions of these strong presidents, and  none have ever been removed by the impeachment process. But an impeachment question for you, what is a "high crime?" Where in American law books do we find high crime?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Constitutional process is not an opinion.
> 
> Further, I'm not speaking of Obama's violations of the Constitution, I am pointing out that he is guilty of felony acts.
> 
> Obama is a criminal - that is a statement of fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what  court found Obama guilty of crimes?
Click to expand...


Obama has violated 18 U.S. Code § 875 - this is a matter of demonstrable fact.

Impeach him, remove him from office, prosecute him, put him in prison.

There is a process to be followed.


----------



## Rogue 9

Uncensored2008 said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TruthSeeker56 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there are people in here who have a SHRED of honesty and objectivity, the OBVIOUS answer to the question is.............
> 
> The worst traitor in U.S. history is BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA.
> 
> He should be immediately arrested and charged with treason and sedition, along with most of his staff and cabinet.
> 
> 
> 
> On what, specific, charges?  If you think he's guilty of treason, you should be able to provide the Constitutionally required evidence for conviction on the charge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Impeach Obama for violation of 18 U.S. Code § 875."
Click to expand...

The kidnapping and extortion statute?    I daresay you'd have a fun time with that in court.


----------



## regent

Uncensored2008 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Constitutional process is not an opinion.
> 
> Further, I'm not speaking of Obama's violations of the Constitution, I am pointing out that he is guilty of felony acts.
> 
> Obama is a criminal - that is a statement of fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what  court found Obama guilty of crimes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama has violated 18 U.S. Code § 875 - this is a matter of demonstrable fact.
> 
> Impeach him, remove him from office, prosecute him, put him in prison.
> 
> There is a process to be followed.
Click to expand...


No, no that's not the way it works in America, so far all you have is your opinion. Need more than that.


----------



## whitehall

Harry Truman. FDR was a virtual corpse by February 1945. Harry Truman may have been forced to take an active role in global politics and the War. The original stated mission for the invasion of Iwo Jima was to depress Japanese  fighter interference of the non-stop daylight raids by B-29 bombers on the defeated country. The problem was that the US controlled the sky and raids from the tiny airfield could be eliminated by destroying the field with B-29 bombers. Naval gunfire on Iwo Jima was less than half the time the Marines requested. The Navy had nowhere else to go so it can be reasonably assumed that the intent was not to kill the Japanese defenders but to test their effectiveness of the Japanese on an island that was considered to be a part of the original Japanese empire in order to gauge the impact of a landing on the mainland. Truman's hatred of the Marines since his WW1 days was evident in his post WW2 effort to decrease the Marines to a token force. Even if Marines failed in their effort and abandoned the Iwo Jima mission it would still be a win for Truman and and most importantly a vindication of the scientists who were anxious to release the genie out of the nuclear bottle. Marines lost a staggering 6,000 in a month on the stinking island. FDR gsped when he read the casualty figures but the bean counter had his answer and all he had to do was revise the original mission. The reason Marines invaded Iwo Jima would be spun as an effort to secure a landing for crippled B-29's and B-29's were ordered to divert from the Philippines and take the long hazardous flight to a tiny island so Truman could say the loss of 6,000 Marines was worth it.


----------



## regent

whitehall said:


> Harry Truman. FDR was a virtual corpse by February 1945. Harry Truman may have been forced to take an active role in global politics and the War. The original stated mission for the invasion of Iwo Jima was to depress Japanese  fighter interference of the non-stop daylight raids by B-29 bombers on the defeated country. The problem was that the US controlled the sky and raids from the tiny airfield could be eliminated by destroying the field with B-29 bombers. Naval gunfire on Iwo Jima was less than half the time the Marines requested. The Navy had nowhere else to go so it can be reasonably assumed that the intent was not to kill the Japanese defenders but to test their effectiveness of the Japanese on an island that was considered to be a part of the original Japanese empire in order to gauge the impact of a landing on the mainland. Truman's hatred of the Marines since his WW1 days was evident in his post WW2 effort to decrease the Marines to a token force. Even if Marines failed in their effort and abandoned the Iwo Jima mission it would still be a win for Truman and and most importantly a vindication of the scientists who were anxious to release the genie out of the nuclear bottle. Marines lost a staggering 6,000 in a month on the stinking island. FDR gsped when he read the casualty figures but the bean counter had his answer and all he had to do was revise the original mission. The reason Marines invaded Iwo Jima would be spun as an effort to secure a landing for crippled B-29's and B-29's were ordered to divert from the Philippines and take the long hazardous flight to a tiny island so Truman could say the loss of 6,000 Marines was worth it.



You might have made a case for incompetency on the navy part  if you had brought up the marine invasion of the Palau islands. Those islands were not needed after it was decided to invade Leyte. Marine casualties were 6526. Marine decisions were made by the navy, not Truman. Should America have used gas warfare to take Iwo, it had been suggested? The B29's were based in the Marianas in the Central Pacific, not the Philippines.  The Japanese air force on Iwo caught the B29's on their way to Japan and then again on their way home. A bonus was the saving of crippled B29's on their way home, and those were not only men but airplanes saved.


----------



## whitehall

regent said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Truman. FDR was a virtual corpse by February 1945. Harry Truman may have been forced to take an active role in global politics and the War. The original stated mission for the invasion of Iwo Jima was to depress Japanese  fighter interference of the non-stop daylight raids by B-29 bombers on the defeated country. The problem was that the US controlled the sky and raids from the tiny airfield could be eliminated by destroying the field with B-29 bombers. Naval gunfire on Iwo Jima was less than half the time the Marines requested. The Navy had nowhere else to go so it can be reasonably assumed that the intent was not to kill the Japanese defenders but to test their effectiveness of the Japanese on an island that was considered to be a part of the original Japanese empire in order to gauge the impact of a landing on the mainland. Truman's hatred of the Marines since his WW1 days was evident in his post WW2 effort to decrease the Marines to a token force. Even if Marines failed in their effort and abandoned the Iwo Jima mission it would still be a win for Truman and and most importantly a vindication of the scientists who were anxious to release the genie out of the nuclear bottle. Marines lost a staggering 6,000 in a month on the stinking island. FDR gsped when he read the casualty figures but the bean counter had his answer and all he had to do was revise the original mission. The reason Marines invaded Iwo Jima would be spun as an effort to secure a landing for crippled B-29's and B-29's were ordered to divert from the Philippines and take the long hazardous flight to a tiny island so Truman could say the loss of 6,000 Marines was worth it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might have made a case for incompetency on the navy part  if you had brought up the marine invasion of the Palau islands. Those islands were not needed after it was decided to invade Leyte. Marine casualties were 6526. Marine decisions were made by the navy, not Truman. Should America have used gas warfare to take Iwo, it had been suggested? The B29's were based in the Marianas in the Central Pacific, not the Philippines.  The Japanese air force on Iwo caught the B29's on their way to Japan and then again on their way home. A bonus was the saving of crippled B29's on their way home, and those were not only men but airplanes saved.
Click to expand...


I'm up for the argument. Let's discuss the original mission statement. Depress the Japanese fighter raids on the B-29's. American bombers could have reduced the tiny volcanic dot to cinders without an invasion.


----------



## regent

whitehall said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Truman. FDR was a virtual corpse by February 1945. Harry Truman may have been forced to take an active role in global politics and the War. The original stated mission for the invasion of Iwo Jima was to depress Japanese  fighter interference of the non-stop daylight raids by B-29 bombers on the defeated country. The problem was that the US controlled the sky and raids from the tiny airfield could be eliminated by destroying the field with B-29 bombers. Naval gunfire on Iwo Jima was less than half the time the Marines requested. The Navy had nowhere else to go so it can be reasonably assumed that the intent was not to kill the Japanese defenders but to test their effectiveness of the Japanese on an island that was considered to be a part of the original Japanese empire in order to gauge the impact of a landing on the mainland. Truman's hatred of the Marines since his WW1 days was evident in his post WW2 effort to decrease the Marines to a token force. Even if Marines failed in their effort and abandoned the Iwo Jima mission it would still be a win for Truman and and most importantly a vindication of the scientists who were anxious to release the genie out of the nuclear bottle. Marines lost a staggering 6,000 in a month on the stinking island. FDR gsped when he read the casualty figures but the bean counter had his answer and all he had to do was revise the original mission. The reason Marines invaded Iwo Jima would be spun as an effort to secure a landing for crippled B-29's and B-29's were ordered to divert from the Philippines and take the long hazardous flight to a tiny island so Truman could say the loss of 6,000 Marines was worth it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might have made a case for incompetency on the navy part  if you had brought up the marine invasion of the Palau islands. Those islands were not needed after it was decided to invade Leyte. Marine casualties were 6526. Marine decisions were made by the navy, not Truman. Should America have used gas warfare to take Iwo, it had been suggested? The B29's were based in the Marianas in the Central Pacific, not the Philippines.  The Japanese air force on Iwo caught the B29's on their way to Japan and then again on their way home. A bonus was the saving of crippled B29's on their way home, and those were not only men but airplanes saved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm up for the argument. Let's discuss the original mission statement. Depress the Japanese fighter raids on the B-29's. American bombers could have reduced the tiny volcanic dot to cinders without an invasion.
Click to expand...


So why weren't all those Japanese islands reduced to dots before an invasion? Why not Okinawa, why not the Japanese homeland? The dot idea is sure better than  A-bombs, I wonder why the navy never thought of the dot idea? I'm not going to defend Navy tactics, but it was not Truman that made the decision, it was a navy, show.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Rogue 9 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> On what, specific, charges?  If you think he's guilty of treason, you should be able to provide the Constitutionally required evidence for conviction on the charge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Impeach Obama for violation of 18 U.S. Code § 875."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The kidnapping and extortion statute?    I daresay you'd have a fun time with that in court.
Click to expand...


No problem at all, Obama is guilty of interstate extortion through "Operation Choke Point," where the DoJ, under orders of Obama has extorted financial institutions that engage in business with legitimate businesses that are on Obama' enemies list.


----------



## Uncensored2008

regent said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what  court found Obama guilty of crimes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama has violated 18 U.S. Code § 875 - this is a matter of demonstrable fact.
> 
> Impeach him, remove him from office, prosecute him, put him in prison.
> 
> There is a process to be followed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, no that's not the way it works in America, so far all you have is your opinion. Need more than that.
Click to expand...


You've confused America with Cuba, that is exactly how it works in America. Obama has engaged in extortion, with a mountain of evidence proving it. He thought he could put ammunition manufacturers out of business by threatening financial institutions dealing with them.

Obama is a felon - impeach the corrupt fucker.


----------



## regent

Uncensored2008 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama has violated 18 U.S. Code § 875 - this is a matter of demonstrable fact.
> 
> Impeach him, remove him from office, prosecute him, put him in prison.
> 
> There is a process to be followed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, no that's not the way it works in America, so far all you have is your opinion. Need more than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've confused America with Cuba, that is exactly how it works in America. Obama has engaged in extortion, with a mountain of evidence proving it. He thought he could put ammunition manufacturers out of business by threatening financial institutions dealing with them.
> 
> Obama is a felon - impeach the corrupt fucker.
Click to expand...


You might try writing  to the Speaker of the House with a list of your charges and your mountain of evidence see how the Speaker responds. The Speaker is a Republican and it would be nice to let us on the boards know how he or other House members respond to your evidence and be sure and mention the Cuba thing.


----------



## Uncensored2008

regent said:


> You might try writing  to the Speaker of the House with a list of your charges and your mountain of evidence see how the Speaker responds. The Speaker is a Republican and it would be nice to let us on the boards know how he or other House members respond to your evidence and be sure and mention the Cuba thing.



Low IQ results in low retention of information.

The house is well aware of Tricky Dicks criminal acts. As I stated before, they will wait until February, when they control house and Senate, prior to moving.


----------



## Rogue 9

Uncensored2008 said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Impeach Obama for violation of 18 U.S. Code § 875."
> 
> 
> 
> The kidnapping and extortion statute?    I daresay you'd have a fun time with that in court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No problem at all, Obama is guilty of interstate extortion through "Operation Choke Point," where the DoJ, under orders of Obama has extorted financial institutions that engage in business with legitimate businesses that are on Obama' enemies list.
Click to expand...

Okay.  Assuming that's so, it's an impeachable offense.  But you said treason.  18 U.S. Code § 875 isn't a treason statute.  Treason is, very specifically, waging war against the United States or adhering to their enemies.  If you took a breach of 18 U.S. Code § 875 to court and tossed a charge of high treason on top just for giggles, it would be laughed out (though conviction on the statutory charges might still happen).


----------



## Discombobulated

Uncensored2008 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> All opinion.
> Any president that has been labeled a "strong president" has been accused of violating the Constitution, the laws of the land, and not eating his veggies. History books list the transgressions of these strong presidents, and  none have ever been removed by the impeachment process. But an impeachment question for you, what is a "high crime?" Where in American law books do we find high crime?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Constitutional process is not an opinion.
> 
> Further, I'm not speaking of Obama's violations of the Constitution, I am pointing out that he is guilty of felony acts.
> 
> Obama is a criminal - that is a statement of fact.
Click to expand...


Golly, if that's true I wonder what could be stopping Republicans from doing something about it.  Gee whiz, sounds like the makings of another conspiracy.


----------



## Picaro

It was probably FDR's fault.


----------



## gam

Edward Snowden


----------



## Crystalclear

gam said:


> Edward Snowden




No, the NSA endangers the American freedom. 
They are the ones who are the real traitors.


----------



## Noomi

George W Bush


----------



## Noomi

gam said:


> Edward Snowden



Is a hero.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Noomi said:


> gam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Edward Snowden
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is a hero.
Click to expand...


exactly,stands up and gives standing ovation.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

TruthSeeker56 said:


> If there are people in here who have a SHRED of honesty and objectivity, the OBVIOUS answer to the question is.............
> 
> The worst traitor in U.S. history is BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA.
> 
> He should be immediately arrested and charged with treason and sedition, along with most of his staff and cabinet.



yeah kinda like EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT BEFORE HIM STARTING WITH LBJ ALL THE WAY TO HIM SHOULD BE.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Crystalclear said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was the war in which your father Prescott was indicted for trading with the enemy, wasn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as I said before,every president since Hoover with the exception of JFK,has a very strong case for the biggest traiter that ever lived.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Especially after 9/11, the Bush and Obama administration.
Click to expand...


EXACTLY.Both of them are traiters and should be locked up and imprisoned but as you know there is one different law for politicans than there is for us so that will never happen until the government starts holding them to the same standards they hold us to.both parites are corrupt.there is no difference between the two.its a one party system designed to look like two parties so the sheople think they have a choice in who gets elected.there is no hope for the future of our country and the world till we get a third party started,one that represents the people and serves them instead of the establishment,military and the bankers like both the republicrats and demopublicans do.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Picaro said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link to poll with names of said 238 noted historians and presidential experts, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we want to see their birthcertificates, too.  Not copies.  The originals.  On paper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank and Gipper will then inform us all of the Communist infiltration of all the birth certificate bureaus, and how that proves nothing.
Click to expand...


Crusader retard is a hypocrite troll.He worships what alex jones says that Obama is not a us citizen but he closes his eyes and covers his ears when Jones talks about how corrupt and evil reagan was. fucking hypocrite. his logic is jones is right about Obama but wrong about reagan. such hypocrisy.the guy should be banned from these forums.he wants it both ways>he cant have it both ways,either jones is wrong about both or right about both,not right about and wrong about the other.fucking hypocrisy at its worse.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Picaro said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cite those posts you allege exist any time.
> 
> We'll wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you will do is continue to dance and avoid taking responsibility for your own words like the shameless punk you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you haven't found those posts of mine yet.
> 
> Do you think 'posting last' will mean you 'won' or something? Do you hope posting a lot of inane juvenile insults will magically make you less of a liar?
Click to expand...




him and crusader retard are resident trolls here i have on my ignore list.they ignore evidence never addressing facts and then stoop to childish name calling when they are cornered.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

Thunderbird said:


> Many possibilities: Aldrich Ames, the Rosenbergs, or Benedict Arnold himself.  My nominee is Harry Dexter White.
> 
> quote: 1. White was the real author of the Morgenthau plan to "turn Germany into a potato field," which when leaked, united non-Nazis with Nazis, stiffened resistance, and prolonged the war.
> 2. White used his position in the Treasury Department to develop a hostile U.S. policy toward Japan. The reason was to distract Japan from their plans to attack the Soviet Union and draw the U.S. into the war as an ally with the Soviet Union.
> 3. White was the author of an extreme ultimatum that Japan could not comply with in the days just prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
> 4. White delayed financial support mandated by law to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist Chinese government causing the triumph of Mao Tse-Tung's Communist Chinese government.
> 5. White was instrumental in handing over the Allied Military mark printing plates to the Soviets. This caused a $250,000,000 deficit in the occupational government budget paid out by the U.S. Treasury. This in effect amounted to the US taxpayer paying the salaries of Soviet occupation troops at a time when US/Soviet relations were deteriorating precisely because of the presence and behavior of Soviet occupation forces in Eastern Europe.
> 
> LINK





Ed Snowden is pretty high up there, top 10 material for sure

When whistleblowers release information that shows the government is acting illegally, they should be protected under the law. Indeed - if that's all they do, they are heros.

Ed Snowden revealed much more than illegal activity. Much of what he revealed was methods  for legal NSA activity. Being a whistleblower doesn't entitle you to do as you please with regards to other secret information. For that he is a traitor - and for taking refuge in Russia, he is a coward and defector.


----------



## namvet

hands down the biggest traitor in American history


----------



## Unkotare

obama is #2 at worst (in every sense of the term).


----------



## namvet

#1. hated by the entire world. period


----------



## Unkotare

namvet said:


> #1. hated by the entire world. period




He's still got a way to go to catch up to that scumbag FDR.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Rogue 9 said:


> Okay.  Assuming that's so, it's an impeachable offense.



No need to assume anything.

{Operation Choke Point works like this: the inter-agency group selects an industry target, lets say, an at-home business that sells cosmetics. Agents working on Operation Choke Point then contact the financial institutions where these entrepreneurs both have their bank accounts and process their payments, informing them that the federal government considers this industry risky and potentially  fraudulent. The government then encourages these financial institutions to cease doing business with individuals within that industry, which are mostly independent small business owners. If the financial institution does not cease doing business with them, then the full weight of federal regulatory power (DOJ, Treasury, FDIC, CFPB) will be brought to bear on the bank or payment processor.

Read more: Obama's Operation Choke Point And The New American Legal System | The Daily Caller
}



> But you said treason.



No, I sure didn't.



> 18 U.S. Code § 875 isn't a treason statute.



It's interstate extortion.



> Treason is, very specifically, waging war against the United States or adhering to their enemies.  If you took a breach of 18 U.S. Code § 875 to court and tossed a charge of high treason on top just for giggles, it would be laughed out (though conviction on the statutory charges might still happen).



Straw man failure - try again.


----------



## namvet

Unkotare said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> #1. hated by the entire world. period
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's still got a way to go to catch up to that scumbag FDR.
Click to expand...


isn't he dead???


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

Unkotare said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> #1. hated by the entire world. period
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's still got a way to go to catch up to that scumbag FDR.
Click to expand...


The only thing FDR did wrong was fail to provide a big enough stimulus.


----------



## Uncensored2008

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> #1. hated by the entire world. period
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's still got a way to go to catch up to that scumbag FDR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing FDR did wrong was fail to provide a big enough stimulus.
Click to expand...


Or big enough concentration camps, amirite Comrade?


----------



## Unkotare

namvet said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> #1. hated by the entire world. period
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's still got a way to go to catch up to that scumbag FDR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> isn't he dead???
Click to expand...



I'm pretty sure he's sharing a single bed with Stalin in hell, yes. Why do you ask?


----------



## gipper

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> #1. hated by the entire world. period
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's still got a way to go to catch up to that scumbag FDR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing FDR did wrong was fail to provide a big enough stimulus.
Click to expand...


Yeah...right.  

Since it is well known, that big government stimulus programs work so well.


----------



## namvet

Unkotare said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's still got a way to go to catch up to that scumbag FDR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> isn't he dead???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure he's sharing a single bed with Stalin in hell, yes. Why do you ask?
Click to expand...


cause all that hate will burn you up kid


----------



## Unkotare

gipper said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's still got a way to go to catch up to that scumbag FDR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing FDR did wrong was fail to provide a big enough stimulus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah...right.
> 
> Since it is well known, that big government stimulus programs work so well.
Click to expand...



That scumbag FDR oversaw a very effective 'stimulation' of syphilis in hundreds of black Americans.


----------



## Unkotare

namvet said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> isn't he dead???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure he's sharing a single bed with Stalin in hell, yes. Why do you ask?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> cause all that hate will burn you up
Click to expand...



...because FDR is dead? Ooooookkk.....


----------



## namvet

Unkotare said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure he's sharing a single bed with Stalin in hell, yes. Why do you ask?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cause all that hate will burn you up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ...because FDR is dead? Ooooookkk.....
Click to expand...


this is all you harp on. subject # one. and since that's all you contribute your on ignore


----------



## Unkotare

namvet said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> cause all that hate will burn you up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...because FDR is dead? Ooooookkk.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> this is all you harp on. subject # one. and since that's all you contribute your [sic] on ignore
Click to expand...



Didn't have you pegged as a coward, but I guess you never know...


----------



## Discombobulated

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many possibilities: Aldrich Ames, the Rosenbergs, or Benedict Arnold himself.  My nominee is Harry Dexter White.
> 
> quote: 1. White was the real author of the Morgenthau plan to "turn Germany into a potato field," which when leaked, united non-Nazis with Nazis, stiffened resistance, and prolonged the war.
> 2. White used his position in the Treasury Department to develop a hostile U.S. policy toward Japan. The reason was to distract Japan from their plans to attack the Soviet Union and draw the U.S. into the war as an ally with the Soviet Union.
> 3. White was the author of an extreme ultimatum that Japan could not comply with in the days just prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
> 4. White delayed financial support mandated by law to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist Chinese government causing the triumph of Mao Tse-Tung's Communist Chinese government.
> 5. White was instrumental in handing over the Allied Military mark printing plates to the Soviets. This caused a $250,000,000 deficit in the occupational government budget paid out by the U.S. Treasury. This in effect amounted to the US taxpayer paying the salaries of Soviet occupation troops at a time when US/Soviet relations were deteriorating precisely because of the presence and behavior of Soviet occupation forces in Eastern Europe.
> 
> LINK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ed Snowden is pretty high up there, top 10 material for sure
> 
> When whistleblowers release information that shows the government is acting illegally, they should be protected under the law. Indeed - if that's all they do, they are heros.
> 
> Ed Snowden revealed much more than illegal activity. Much of what he revealed was methods  for legal NSA activity. Being a whistleblower doesn't entitle you to do as you please with regards to other secret information. For that he is a traitor - and for taking refuge in Russia, he is a coward and defector.
Click to expand...


I'd like to see Snowden put in with the general population at Leavenworth, make him Manning's cell mate.


----------



## namvet

I'd like to see Reid's robot put in front of a firing squad


----------



## TheIceMan

The answer is obvious.  Abraham Lincoln was the biggest traitor to the US Constitution.


----------



## gipper

TheIceMan said:


> The answer is obvious.  Abraham Lincoln was the biggest traitor to the US Constitution.



Without question.

Too bad so many Americans have been told lies about Dishonest Abe, by the State, and accepted those lies.


----------



## thanatos144

Only idiots see freeing slaves and saving a country as being a traitor.  Same ignorant fools who should be democrats where all the ignorant bigots belong 

tapatalk post


----------



## HenryBHough

Nice assortment of traitors during The Manhattan Project.  Take your pick.  Meanwhile, they are well on the way to being eclipsed with a little over two years working time remaining.


----------



## gipper

thanatos144 said:


> Only idiots see freeing slaves and saving a country as being a traitor.  Same ignorant fools who should be democrats where all the ignorant bigots belong
> 
> tapatalk post



The ends justify the means...in your small mind.

And yet, you claim to despise leftists...too funny and most hypocritical.

You need to recognize you are lacking knowledge.


----------



## thanatos144

gipper said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only idiots see freeing slaves and saving a country as being a traitor.  Same ignorant fools who should be democrats where all the ignorant bigots belong
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ends justify the means...in your small mind.
> 
> And yet, you claim to despise leftists...too funny and most hypocritical.
> 
> You need to recognize you are lacking knowledge.
Click to expand...


You do know that Lincoln didn't start the war right?


----------



## Discombobulated

gipper said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only idiots see freeing slaves and saving a country as being a traitor.  Same ignorant fools who should be democrats where all the ignorant bigots belong
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ends justify the means...in your small mind.
> 
> And yet, you claim to despise leftists...too funny and most hypocritical.
> 
> You need to recognize you are lacking knowledge.
Click to expand...


Not very familiar with history are you?   The ends always justify the means......every time.


----------



## Discombobulated

thanatos144 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only idiots see freeing slaves and saving a country as being a traitor.  Same ignorant fools who should be democrats where all the ignorant bigots belong
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ends justify the means...in your small mind.
> 
> And yet, you claim to despise leftists...too funny and most hypocritical.
> 
> You need to recognize you are lacking knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do know that Lincoln didn't start the war right?
Click to expand...


Why confuse the issue with historical fact?


----------



## barry1960

Discombobulated said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ends justify the means...in your small mind.
> 
> And yet, you claim to despise leftists...too funny and most hypocritical.
> 
> You need to recognize you are lacking knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that Lincoln didn't start the war right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why confuse the issue with historical fact?
Click to expand...


Branding Abraham Lincoln a traitor? You go too far. I understand he did expand the power of the Federal government greatly to preserve our great nation. One wonders what turn world history would have taken had he not been successful.

Hard to believe that some nobody on the internet can call a great American a traitor, but that is free speech.

Although Lincoln did not start the war, the re-supplying of Fort Sumner maneuvered the South into firing the first shot. If the South really wanted to have their own country they would have not fired on Fort Sumter and picked a different capital than Richmond.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Thunderbird said:


> Many possibilities: Aldrich Ames, the Rosenbergs, or Benedict Arnold himself.  My nominee is Harry Dexter White.
> 
> quote: 1. White was the real author of the Morgenthau plan to "turn Germany into a potato field," which when leaked, united non-Nazis with Nazis, stiffened resistance, and prolonged the war.
> 2. White used his position in the Treasury Department to develop a hostile U.S. policy toward Japan. The reason was to distract Japan from their plans to attack the Soviet Union and draw the U.S. into the war as an ally with the Soviet Union.
> 3. White was the author of an extreme ultimatum that Japan could not comply with in the days just prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
> 4. White delayed financial support mandated by law to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist Chinese government causing the triumph of Mao Tse-Tung's Communist Chinese government.
> 5. White was instrumental in handing over the Allied Military mark printing plates to the Soviets. This caused a $250,000,000 deficit in the occupational government budget paid out by the U.S. Treasury. This in effect amounted to the US taxpayer paying the salaries of Soviet occupation troops at a time when US/Soviet relations were deteriorating precisely because of the presence and behavior of Soviet occupation forces in Eastern Europe.
> 
> LINK



Oh just the US? Was gonna say Paul from the NT for taking a Jewish idea and making it not-Jewish (i.e. Christian.)


----------



## soonerthunder22

Well, at the very top of the list is the exalted idol of purveyors of the gay bathhouses, in and around Chicago..........Barry "buttboy" Soetero.  Any other traitor pales in comparison to the Illinois Hoover.


----------



## gipper

thanatos144 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only idiots see freeing slaves and saving a country as being a traitor.  Same ignorant fools who should be democrats where all the ignorant bigots belong
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ends justify the means...in your small mind.
> 
> And yet, you claim to despise leftists...too funny and most hypocritical.
> 
> You need to recognize you are lacking knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do know that Lincoln didn't start the war right?
Click to expand...


You just proved your lack of knowledge....AGAIN!


----------



## gipper

barry1960 said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that Lincoln didn't start the war right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why confuse the issue with historical fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Branding Abraham Lincoln a traitor? You go too far. I understand he did expand the power of the Federal government greatly to preserve our great nation. One wonders what turn world history would have taken had he not been successful.
> 
> Hard to believe that some nobody on the internet can call a great American a traitor, but that is free speech.
> 
> Although Lincoln did not start the war, the re-supplying of Fort Sumner maneuvered the South into firing the first shot. If the South really wanted to have their own country they would have not fired on Fort Sumter and picked a different capital than Richmond.
Click to expand...


Lincoln is a traitor.

Oh look, a guy on the internet called a traitor a traitor.  

Great American....my ass!


----------



## thanatos144

gipper said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ends justify the means...in your small mind.
> 
> And yet, you claim to despise leftists...too funny and most hypocritical.
> 
> You need to recognize you are lacking knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that Lincoln didn't start the war right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just proved your lack of knowledge....AGAIN!
Click to expand...


No I proved I know how to read...You just prove your ignorance.


----------



## barry1960

gipper said:


> barry1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why confuse the issue with historical fact?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Branding Abraham Lincoln a traitor? You go too far. I understand he did expand the power of the Federal government greatly to preserve our great nation. One wonders what turn world history would have taken had he not been successful.
> 
> Hard to believe that some nobody on the internet can call a great American a traitor, but that is free speech.
> 
> Although Lincoln did not start the war, the re-supplying of Fort Sumner maneuvered the South into firing the first shot. If the South really wanted to have their own country they would have not fired on Fort Sumter and picked a different capital than Richmond.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln is a traitor.
> 
> Oh look, a guy on the internet called a traitor a traitor.
> 
> Great American....my ass!
Click to expand...


 Since Lincoln is one of our most honored presidents yours is not a prevalent opinion. In fact it is wacko.


----------



## Uncensored2008

barry1960 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> barry1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Branding Abraham Lincoln a traitor? You go too far. I understand he did expand the power of the Federal government greatly to preserve our great nation. One wonders what turn world history would have taken had he not been successful.
> 
> Hard to believe that some nobody on the internet can call a great American a traitor, but that is free speech.
> 
> Although Lincoln did not start the war, the re-supplying of Fort Sumner maneuvered the South into firing the first shot. If the South really wanted to have their own country they would have not fired on Fort Sumter and picked a different capital than Richmond.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln is a traitor.
> 
> Oh look, a guy on the internet called a traitor a traitor.
> 
> Great American....my ass!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since Lincoln is one of our most honored presidents yours is not a prevalent opinion. In fact it is wacko.
Click to expand...



I have a question;

If George W. Bush were found to have suspended habeas corpus, would you call him a traitor?

If George W. Bush were found to have arrested and imprisoned reporters who wrote articles critical of him, would you call him a traitor?

If George W. Bush were found to have placed military troops in front of the Supreme Court to block justices from convining, would you call him a traitor?

If George W. Bush were found to have barricaded the capitol to keep congress out of session, would you call him a traitor?

If George W. Bush were found to have used naval ships to deliberately shell and kill civilians in New York City, would you call him a traitor?

Because Abraham Lincoln did ALL of these things.


----------



## natstew

martybegan said:


> Jefferson Davis.



Abraham Lincoln by far!


----------



## natstew

Abraham Lincoln had some of his political opponents deported to Canada, others put in prison without trials, and others fled ahead of his gestapo style U.S. Marshals.
 Abraham Lincoln Unconstitutionally invaded the Sovereign State Of Virginia in the East and Mississippi in the West.
 Abraham Lincoln Unconstitutionally occupied Jacksonville Florida, Key West Florida, Pensacola Florida, and Ft. Desoto Florida.
 Abraham Lincoln blockaded all Major Sea Ports south of Chesapeake Bay against International Law.


----------



## natstew

Abraham Lincoln was elected by less than a majority of the voters in his first Presidential election.

The Democrat Party was split dividing the Democrat vote and that's what gave him the election.


----------



## Discombobulated

gipper said:


> barry1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why confuse the issue with historical fact?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Branding Abraham Lincoln a traitor? You go too far. I understand he did expand the power of the Federal government greatly to preserve our great nation. One wonders what turn world history would have taken had he not been successful.
> 
> Hard to believe that some nobody on the internet can call a great American a traitor, but that is free speech.
> 
> Although Lincoln did not start the war, the re-supplying of Fort Sumner maneuvered the South into firing the first shot. If the South really wanted to have their own country they would have not fired on Fort Sumter and picked a different capital than Richmond.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln is a traitor.
> 
> Oh look, a guy on the internet called a traitor a traitor.
> 
> Great American....my ass!
Click to expand...


Very compelling argument.


----------



## Discombobulated

natstew said:


> Abraham Lincoln had some of his political opponents deported to Canada, others put in prison without trials, and others fled ahead of his gestapo style U.S. Marshals.
> Abraham Lincoln Unconstitutionally invaded the Sovereign State Of Virginia in the East and Mississippi in the West.
> Abraham Lincoln Unconstitutionally occupied Jacksonville Florida, Key West Florida, Pensacola Florida, and Ft. Desoto Florida.
> Abraham Lincoln blockaded all Major Sea Ports south of Chesapeake Bay against International Law.



Don't you just love pop culture revisionist history.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Discombobulated said:


> Very compelling argument.



I see that you ignore the ones that detail why people would find this of Lincoln.


----------



## Discombobulated

Uncensored2008 said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very compelling argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see that you ignore the ones that detail why people would find this of Lincoln.
Click to expand...


Yes, I ignore them completely because their so called arguments have no basis in historical fact.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Discombobulated said:


> Yes, I ignore them completely because their so called arguments have no basis in historical fact.



Only because you  believe that the hate sites which do your thinking for you are the basis of history.

Like most leftists, you are ignorant and uneducated.


----------



## gipper

barry1960 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> barry1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Branding Abraham Lincoln a traitor? You go too far. I understand he did expand the power of the Federal government greatly to preserve our great nation. One wonders what turn world history would have taken had he not been successful.
> 
> Hard to believe that some nobody on the internet can call a great American a traitor, but that is free speech.
> 
> Although Lincoln did not start the war, the re-supplying of Fort Sumner maneuvered the South into firing the first shot. If the South really wanted to have their own country they would have not fired on Fort Sumter and picked a different capital than Richmond.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln is a traitor.
> 
> Oh look, a guy on the internet called a traitor a traitor.
> 
> Great American....my ass!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since Lincoln is one of our most honored presidents yours is not a prevalent opinion. In fact it is wacko.
Click to expand...


You have proven yourself to be uninformed.

Please read:
Walter Williams
Thomas DiLorenzo
Murray Rothbard
H.L.Mencken
Ron Paul
Donald Livingston
Ludwig von Mises
Clyde Wilson
and so many others who know the truth...

If these names are unfamiliar to you, it only proves you are terribly uninformed.  Get informed.

I thought as you did, as I was also brainwashed by the Statist p-school establishment.  But, unlike the ignorant Lincoln cultist, who refuses to accept the truth, I did.

If Lincoln had the a-bomb and dropped it on the South, the Lincoln cultist would believe it a good thing.


----------



## thanatos144

I will never see a president that saved the country from destruction by slaving assholes as being a traitor....I am a republican. I dont ever see democrats like the confederates as correct. How many Americans died because democrat slavers threw a fucking fit over a man being elected? To all of you worshiping these democrats... Fuck you.


----------



## Discombobulated

Uncensored2008 said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I ignore them completely because their so called arguments have no basis in historical fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only because you  believe that the hate sites which do your thinking for you are the basis of history.
> 
> Like most leftists, you are ignorant and uneducated.
Click to expand...


The difference here is that, unlike you, I don't need to refer to a website, I know history.  There's a quaint old custom that was once used to acquire actual knowledge, we used to read what were known as books.  The amazing thing is that you can't find 1% of that information on the internet.  If your still confused try typing "books" into your search.


----------



## gipper

Discombobulated said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> barry1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Branding Abraham Lincoln a traitor? You go too far. I understand he did expand the power of the Federal government greatly to preserve our great nation. One wonders what turn world history would have taken had he not been successful.
> 
> Hard to believe that some nobody on the internet can call a great American a traitor, but that is free speech.
> 
> Although Lincoln did not start the war, the re-supplying of Fort Sumner maneuvered the South into firing the first shot. If the South really wanted to have their own country they would have not fired on Fort Sumter and picked a different capital than Richmond.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln is a traitor.
> 
> Oh look, a guy on the internet called a traitor a traitor.
> 
> Great American....my ass!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very compelling argument.
Click to expand...


I have argued my position in many other threads with reference to the many great scholars who have exposed Lincoln.

Problem is the Lincoln cultist only sees ending slavery as Lincoln's rightful goal...funny...he never wanted to end slavery and to his dying day intended to deport all African Americans.  

Slavery was ended throughout the western world without violence prior to the War of Northern Aggression.  It was even terminated in many northern states without violence.

Lincoln CHOSE VIOLENCE and not to end slavery, but to impose statist tyranny.   

The Founders are STILL spinning in their graves over what Dishonest Abe did, but they must also be disgusted by the millions of Americans who venerate an appalling tyrant.


----------



## Discombobulated

natstew said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson Davis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abraham Lincoln by far!
Click to expand...


Another scholar weighs in with the wrong information.  Jefferson Davis violated numerous articles of the Confederate Constitution, including suspending habeas corpus.  The Confederate government was a highly centralized authoritarian government.


----------



## Discombobulated

gipper said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln is a traitor.
> 
> Oh look, a guy on the internet called a traitor a traitor.
> 
> Great American....my ass!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very compelling argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have argued my position in many other threads with reference to the many great scholars who have exposed Lincoln.
> 
> Problem is the Lincoln cultist only sees ending slavery as Lincoln's rightful goal...funny...he never wanted to end slavery and to his dying day intended to deport all African Americans.
> 
> Slavery was ended throughout the western world without violence prior to the War of Northern Aggression.  It was even terminated in many northern states without violence.
> 
> Lincoln CHOSE VIOLENCE and not to end slavery, but to impose statist tyranny.
> 
> The Founders are STILL spinning in their graves over what Dishonest Abe did, but they must also be disgusted by the millions of Americans who venerate an appalling tyrant.
Click to expand...


There are no legitimate scholars who would substantiate your superficial characterizations of history.


----------



## gipper

Discombobulated said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very compelling argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have argued my position in many other threads with reference to the many great scholars who have exposed Lincoln.
> 
> Problem is the Lincoln cultist only sees ending slavery as Lincoln's rightful goal...funny...he never wanted to end slavery and to his dying day intended to deport all African Americans.
> 
> Slavery was ended throughout the western world without violence prior to the War of Northern Aggression.  It was even terminated in many northern states without violence.
> 
> Lincoln CHOSE VIOLENCE and not to end slavery, but to impose statist tyranny.
> 
> The Founders are STILL spinning in their graves over what Dishonest Abe did, but they must also be disgusted by the millions of Americans who venerate an appalling tyrant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no legitimate scholars who would substantiate your superficial characterizations of history.
Click to expand...


Your post only proves that you to be a complete idiot.


----------



## Discombobulated

gipper said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have argued my position in many other threads with reference to the many great scholars who have exposed Lincoln.
> 
> Problem is the Lincoln cultist only sees ending slavery as Lincoln's rightful goal...funny...he never wanted to end slavery and to his dying day intended to deport all African Americans.
> 
> Slavery was ended throughout the western world without violence prior to the War of Northern Aggression.  It was even terminated in many northern states without violence.
> 
> Lincoln CHOSE VIOLENCE and not to end slavery, but to impose statist tyranny.
> 
> The Founders are STILL spinning in their graves over what Dishonest Abe did, but they must also be disgusted by the millions of Americans who venerate an appalling tyrant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no legitimate scholars who would substantiate your superficial characterizations of history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post only proves that you to be a complete idiot.
Click to expand...


Your so called arguments seem to be the unfortunate results of an internet based education.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Discombobulated said:


> The difference here is that, unlike you, I don't need to refer to a website, I know history.



Mindlessly reciting hate points from ThinkProgess is not "knowing history."

I've seen no evidence that you "know" anything at all. You are a partisan hack, to be sure, but that is not knowledge, nor based on knowledge.



> There's a quaint old custom that was once used to acquire actual knowledge, we used to read what were known as books.  The amazing thing is that you can't find 1% of that information on the internet.  If your still confused try typing "books" into your search.



ROFL

So, you have read "A Peoples History of the United States" and fantasize that you are "informed?"

Sorry, you're still just an ignorant and uneducated troll. But whatchagunnado?


----------



## barry1960

Uncensored2008 said:


> barry1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln is a traitor.
> 
> Oh look, a guy on the internet called a traitor a traitor.
> 
> Great American....my ass!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since Lincoln is one of our most honored presidents yours is not a prevalent opinion. In fact it is wacko.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question;
> 
> If George W. Bush were found to have suspended habeas corpus, would you call him a traitor?
> 
> If George W. Bush were found to have arrested and imprisoned reporters who wrote articles critical of him, would you call him a traitor?
> 
> If George W. Bush were found to have placed military troops in front of the Supreme Court to block justices from convining, would you call him a traitor?
> 
> If George W. Bush were found to have barricaded the capitol to keep congress out of session, would you call him a traitor?
> 
> If George W. Bush were found to have used naval ships to deliberately shell and kill civilians in New York City, would you call him a traitor?
> 
> Because Abraham Lincoln did ALL of these things.
Click to expand...


That is more than one question......careful on those websites you read, anyone can post anything and you will swallow it up as absolute truth if it fits your own beliefs.

Lincoln's presidency covered the most tumultuous period in American history. He had to act decisively to navigate a course to save our nation. In doing so he expanded powers greatly. However the label traitor would not fit even if you feel he acted unwarrantedly. The label to argue was whether or not he was a tyrant. I would disagree, but at least this is an arguable point.

Traitor is just plain wacko.


----------



## Discombobulated

Uncensored2008 said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference here is that, unlike you, I don't need to refer to a website, I know history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindlessly reciting hate points from ThinkProgess is not "knowing history."
> 
> I've seen no evidence that you "know" anything at all. You are a partisan hack, to be sure, but that is not knowledge, nor based on knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a quaint old custom that was once used to acquire actual knowledge, we used to read what were known as books.  The amazing thing is that you can't find 1% of that information on the internet.  If your still confused try typing "books" into your search.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL
> 
> So, you have read "A Peoples History of the United States" and fantasize that you are "informed?"
> 
> Sorry, you're still just an ignorant and uneducated troll. But whatchagunnado?
Click to expand...


It might be easier for you to read some history if your knees weren't constantly jerking so hard.


----------



## Discombobulated

I've forgotten more about the Civil War than these idiots will ever know.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Discombobulated said:


> It might be easier for you to read some history if your knees weren't constantly jerking so hard.



I listed some of the actions by Lincoln that, if they were engaged by George W. Bush, would absolutely have the hive-mind programming you to say BOOOOOOSSSSHHHH was a traitor.

So the first question, do you question if any or all of these elements are indeed fact? (I can wait while you log on to ThinkProgress to ask your masters.)

If you were unaware of these, does this indicate that you are well educated and informed? 

From my perspective, your posts reveal you to be ignorant and uneducated.


----------



## Discombobulated

You guys are just a little bit too stupid, so lets begin your education.  Let's start with an entertaining, easy to understand lecture of Civil War history.  You people have obviously never seen a book, so lets try something you can handle....a video.   Pay attention because there will be a short quiz later.

Civil War Seven Days Battles | Video | C-SPAN.org


----------



## Uncensored2008

Discombobulated said:


> I've forgotten more about the Civil War than these idiots will ever know.



You've failed to demonstrate any knowledge, thus far.

Did Lincoln cause the arrest and imprisonment journalists who criticized him?

(I'll wait while you check with DailyKOS)

Assuming the hive has now confirmed what I posted, were his actions legal? Were they Constitutional?


----------



## Discombobulated

Uncensored2008 said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It might be easier for you to read some history if your knees weren't constantly jerking so hard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I listed some of the actions by Lincoln that, if they were engaged by George W. Bush, would absolutely have the hive-mind programming you to say BOOOOOOSSSSHHHH was a traitor.
> 
> So the first question, do you question if any or all of these elements are indeed fact? (I can wait while you log on to ThinkProgress to ask your masters.)
> 
> If you were unaware of these, does this indicate that you are well educated and informed?
> 
> From my perspective, your posts reveal you to be ignorant and uneducated.
Click to expand...


You post from the perspective of an ignorant fool, your perspective has no value.


----------



## Discombobulated

Uncensored2008 said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've forgotten more about the Civil War than these idiots will ever know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've failed to demonstrate any knowledge, thus far.
> 
> Did Lincoln cause the arrest and imprisonment journalists who criticized him?
> 
> (I'll wait while you check with DailyKOS)
> 
> Assuming the hive has now confirmed what I posted, were his actions legal? Were they Constitutional?
Click to expand...


Which parts are new and surprising revelations for you?  Did you just discover these facts yesterday?


----------



## Picaro

gipper said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln CHOSE VIOLENCE and not to end slavery, but to impose statist tyranny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he did want to provoke a war, but the threats of violence against the South made by parts of the Republican Party began before secession and the election of Lincoln, so he was basically catering to factions of his own Party in going to war.
> 
> A book by Hinton Rowan Helper, *The Impending Crisis of the South*, was published in 1857, purporting to deal with the economic impact of slavery on the South, was adopted by the Republicans as a propaganda tool. They published abridged editions of it and used it accompanied by inflammatory rhetoric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leading Republicans raised money to print and circulate an abridged edition as a campaign document. This infuriated Southerners, especially as the Republicans added such inflammatory captions in the abridged edition as: "Revolution -- Peacefully if we can, Violently if we must." ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> from page 112 *Ordeal By Fire: The Civil War and Reconstruction*, James M. MCPherson. Alfred a. Knopf 1982.
> 
> Helper's book played a role in provoking one of the most serious deadlocks in the history of Congress. The Republicans had a plurality but not a majority on the House that convened in December 1859 over the election of Speaker of the House. States passed resolutions to vote on candidates based on whether they supported the book or not. It took 44 ballots, with ultimately the Speakership going to William Pennington.
> 
> Many who claimed they supported it had never read it. lol ...
> 
> The deadlock went on for 8 weeks, and one commentator noted "the only persons who did not have a revolver and  knife were those who had two revolvers."
> 
> John Brown's raid had taken place two months before this Congress convened, and the support for that violence along with the threats of violence against the South in Republican campaign literature pretty much establishes the pattern of Republicans willing to use violence even before the secessions and election of Lincoln began.
Click to expand...


----------



## Discombobulated

Picaro said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln CHOSE VIOLENCE and not to end slavery, but to impose statist tyranny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he did want to provoke a war, but the threats of violence against the South made by parts of the Republican Party began before secession and the election of Lincoln, so he was basically catering to factions of his own Party in going to war.
> 
> A book by Hinton Rowan Helper, *The Impending Crisis of the South*, was published in 1857, purporting to deal with the economic impact of slavery on the South, was adopted by the Republicans as a propaganda tool. They published abridged editions of it and used it accompanied by inflammatory rhetoric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leading Republicans raised money to print and circulate an abridged edition as a campaign document. This infuriated Southerners, especially as the Republicans added such inflammatory captions in the abridged edition as: "Revolution -- Peacefully if we can, Violently if we must." ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> from page 112 *Ordeal By Fire: The Civil War and Reconstruction*, James M. MCPherson. Alfred a. Knopf 1982,
> 
> Helper's book played a role in provoking one of the most serious deadlocks in the history of Congress. The Republicans had a plurality but not a majority on the House that convened in December 1859.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .. over the election of Speaker of the House. States passed resolutions to vote on candidates based on whether they supported the book or not. It took 44 ballots, with ultimately the Speakership going to William Pennington.
> 
> Many who claimed they supported it had never read it. lol ...
> 
> The deadlock went on for 8 weeks, and one commentator noted "the only persons who did not have a revolver and  knife were those who had two revolvers."
Click to expand...


John Brown's raid had taken place two months before this Congress convened, and the support for that violence along with the threats of violence against the South in Republican campaign literature pretty much establishes the pattern of Republicans willing to use violence even before the secessions and election of Lincoln began.[/QUOTE]

Amazing how effective contrived perceptions can be.


----------



## Picaro

Discombobulated said:


> Amazing how effective contrived perceptions can be.



Amazing how ineffective snarky juvenile trolling can be.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Discombobulated said:


> Which parts are new and surprising revelations for you?  Did you just discover these facts yesterday?



Yes, you are an uneducated dolt, most leftists are.  I see you failed to answer the question, did you not get a response from the hate sites, telling you what you think?


----------



## Discombobulated

Uncensored2008 said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which parts are new and surprising revelations for you?  Did you just discover these facts yesterday?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you are an uneducated dolt, most leftists are.  I see you failed to answer the question, did you not get a response from the hate sites, telling you what you think?
Click to expand...


Aren't you embarrassed to post nonsense all the time?  You should be.


----------



## Discombobulated

Picaro said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how effective contrived perceptions can be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how ineffective snarky juvenile trolling can be.
Click to expand...


Amazing how pop culture revisionist interpretations pass for history these days.


----------



## Discombobulated

I'd love to see the list of eminent scholars who can validate their hair brained theories.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Discombobulated said:


> Aren't you embarrassed to post nonsense all the time?  You should be.



What have I posted that is "nonsense," sploogy?

Be specific.

See, here's the deal; you have yet to post anything on-topic or relevant. You claim to have knowledge, yet demonstrate only ignorance.

I know this works for Jon Stewart, but Stewart is designed to appeal to an audience of fucking retards, people like you. Here, the vacuous bullshit fails to impress. I suspect you are the recreation of a poster who used to regale us with tales of how much truth matters, while never engaging in truth....

Either way, you are an ignorant, uneducated troll, with the intellect of a lamppost.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Discombobulated said:


> I'd love to see the list of eminent scholars who can validate their hair brained theories.



Which theories, retard?

Be specific.


----------



## Discombobulated

Uncensored2008 said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't you embarrassed to post nonsense all the time?  You should be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What have I posted that is "nonsense," sploogy?
> 
> Be specific.
> 
> See, here's the deal; you have yet to post anything on-topic or relevant. You claim to have knowledge, yet demonstrate only ignorance.
> 
> I know this works for Jon Stewart, but Stewart is designed to appeal to an audience of fucking retards, people like you. Here, the vacuous bullshit fails to impress. I suspect you are the recreation of a poster who used to regale us with tales of how much truth matters, while never engaging in truth....
> 
> Either way, you are an ignorant, uneducated troll, with the intellect of a lamppost.
Click to expand...


All you've done is make personal references, which doesn't hide the fact that your knowledge is all superficial.


----------



## Discombobulated

Uncensored2008 said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd love to see the list of eminent scholars who can validate their hair brained theories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which theories, retard?
> 
> Be specific.
Click to expand...


The one about Lincoln being a traitor.  I'd like to know the name of even one legitimate historian who would agree with that kind of incredibly stupid remark.


----------



## Discombobulated

Of course it might be really interesting if you knew the names of any legitimate historians.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Discombobulated said:


> The one about Lincoln being a traitor.  I'd like to know the name of even one legitimate historian who would agree with that kind of incredibly stupid remark.



I listed 5 items that Lincoln engaged in, retard.

Which of those are false or inaccurate?

Here they are again retard, recognizing that you have the short term memory of a goldfish, as well as the intellect of a lamppost.

suspended habeas corpus, arrested and imprisoned reporters who wrote articles critical of him,  placed military troops in front of the Supreme Court to block justices from convening, barricaded the capitol to keep congress out of session, used naval ships to deliberately shell and kill civilians in New York City.

Comparing your intellect to a lamppost is an insult to lampposts.


----------



## Picaro

Discombobulated said:


> Amazing how pop culture revisionist interpretations pass for history these days.



Amazing that nobody is aware you've been appointed as the ultimate authority on who  the 'legitimate and eminent scholars' are and what constitutes 'pop culture revisionism'.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Discombobulated said:


> Of course it might be really interesting if you knew the names of any legitimate historians.



Psssst retard? Rachel Maddow isn't actually a historian...

I'm just sayin...


----------



## thanatos144

Uncensored2008 said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it might be really interesting if you knew the names of any legitimate historians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Psssst retard? Rachel Maddow isn't actually a historian...
> 
> I'm just sayin...
Click to expand...


other then being a lesbian wtf is she? A lawyer or something?


----------



## Discombobulated

Uncensored2008 said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one about Lincoln being a traitor.  I'd like to know the name of even one legitimate historian who would agree with that kind of incredibly stupid remark.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I listed 5 items that Lincoln engaged in, retard.
> 
> Which of those are false or inaccurate?
> 
> Here they are again retard, recognizing that you have the short term memory of a goldfish, as well as the intellect of a lamppost.
> 
> suspended habeas corpus, arrested and imprisoned reporters who wrote articles critical of him,  placed military troops in front of the Supreme Court to block justices from convening, barricaded the capitol to keep congress out of session, used naval ships to deliberately shell and kill civilians in New York City.
> 
> Comparing your intellect to a lamppost is an insult to lampposts.
Click to expand...


I read your little question and responded already.  You are apparently just a little too dense to take my meaning.   Which part of these facts are new revelations for you?  These are things everyone is already well aware of.   You still fail to name the legitimate historian who would concur with your characterization of treason.


----------



## Uncensored2008

thanatos144 said:


> other then being a lesbian wtf is she? A lawyer or something?



She is a commentator, quality notwithstanding.


----------



## Discombobulated

Uncensored2008 said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it might be really interesting if you knew the names of any legitimate historians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Psssst retard? Rachel Maddow isn't actually a historian...
> 
> I'm just sayin...
Click to expand...


You are just about as fucking stupid as you can possibly be.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Discombobulated said:


> I read your little question and responded already.



No, you didn't respond. You lack the intellectual capacity and education needed to respond. 

You should have stuck it out through 2nd grade, you wouldn't be so easily humiliated.





> You are apparently just a little too dense to take my meaning.



You lack the education and wits to address my post - or any post. You seek to disrupt the discussion by pissing into the wind and grinning - then telling us all how very brilliant you are for doing so.



> Which part of these facts are new revelations for you?  These are things everyone is already well aware of.   You still fail to name the legitimate historian who would concur with your characterization of treason.



How is your golden shower, retard?

You fool no one.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Discombobulated said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it might be really interesting if you knew the names of any legitimate historians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Psssst retard? Rachel Maddow isn't actually a historian...
> 
> I'm just sayin...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are just about as fucking stupid as you can possibly be.
Click to expand...


Ironic post is ironic...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## HenryBHough

Lincoln is dead.

Has been dead for some time.

So, as Hillary might say:  "What difference does it make?"

It might be more reasonable to be concerned about traitors who are not just alive but remain in power.


----------



## thanatos144

Uncensored2008 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> other then being a lesbian wtf is she? A lawyer or something?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She is a commentator, quality notwithstanding.
Click to expand...


Thats not what I meant.... It isnt like you go to college to be a commentator.


----------



## Uncensored2008

thanatos144 said:


> Thats not what I meant.... It isnt like you go to college to be a commentator.



Most commentators hold journalism majors.

I have no idea if Maddow completed college or not, but if she did, chances are the degree is in journalism.


----------



## thanatos144

Uncensored2008 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not what I meant.... It isnt like you go to college to be a commentator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most commentators hold journalism majors.
> 
> I have no idea if Maddow completed college or not, but if she did, chances are the degree is in journalism.
Click to expand...


then she is a journalist.....Thats what i was asking.


----------



## Discombobulated

Uncensored2008 said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Psssst retard? Rachel Maddow isn't actually a historian...
> 
> I'm just sayin...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are just about as fucking stupid as you can possibly be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ironic post is ironic...
> 
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Click to expand...


It's time for your quiz dipshit.  What books were written by the well known author in the video....and how many of them have you read?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Discombobulated said:


> It's time for your quiz dipshit.  What books were written by the well known author in the video....and how many of them have you read?



Yeah retard, you are not in a position to ask questions.

Answer some of the dozens posed to you, and that might change.

Right now you are just a troll and a retard - irrelevant. So be a good little troll, and do fuck off.


----------



## Discombobulated

Uncensored2008 said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's time for your quiz dipshit.  What books were written by the well known author in the video....and how many of them have you read?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah retard, you are not in a position to ask questions.
> 
> Answer some of the dozens posed to you, and that might change.
> 
> Right now you are just a troll and a retard - irrelevant. So be a good little troll, and do fuck off.
Click to expand...


I addressed your extremely elementary question already, you just didn't like the answer.   If you'd ever read a book you might know the difference between internet inspired nonsense and actual historic research.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Discombobulated said:


> I addressed your extremely elementary question already, you just didn't like the answer.



You've addressed nothing - nor will you. You lack the education to address the elementary questions I posed. 



> If you'd ever read a book you might know the difference between internet inspired nonsense and actual historic research.



You know retard, I doubt you have actually read Zinn's bullshit fabrication, since I question your ability to read on the 5th grade level. More likely you merely spew shit you get off the hate sites.

You wouldn't know a real historian if someone hit you upside the head with a copy of "The Discoverers."


----------



## Discombobulated

Picaro said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how pop culture revisionist interpretations pass for history these days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing that nobody is aware you've been appointed as the ultimate authority on who  the 'legitimate and eminent scholars' are and what constitutes 'pop culture revisionism'.
Click to expand...


I can hardly wait to see the long list of historians who support the incredibly ludicrous idea of Lincoln being a traitor.   That should be an easy list for you to compile as authors like that tend to share their thoughts with the world through blogs rather than books.


----------



## Discombobulated

Uncensored2008 said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I addressed your extremely elementary question already, you just didn't like the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've addressed nothing - nor will you. You lack the education to address the elementary questions I posed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you'd ever read a book you might know the difference between internet inspired nonsense and actual historic research.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know retard, I doubt you have actually read Zinn's bullshit fabrication, since I question your ability to read on the 5th grade level. More likely you merely spew shit you get off the hate sites.
> 
> You wouldn't know a real historian if someone hit you upside the head with a copy of "The Discoverers."
Click to expand...


I have no idea what all this other contemporary bullshit has to do with history.  Amazing you were able to think of the name of an author.   I'm not familiar with his work, no doubt you can educate me as to the relevance here.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Discombobulated said:


> I have no idea what all this other contemporary bullshit has to do with history.  Amazing you were able to think of the name of an author.   I'm not familiar with his work, no doubt you can educate me as to the relevance here.



Of course you aren't familiar with the name - you have less than a 4th grade education. Still, the idiocy you mindlessly ape from DailyKOS is based on Howard Zinn.

I note with amusement your lack of grasp of the reference to Boorstin.

But then, there never was doubt that you are cretin.


----------



## Discombobulated

Uncensored2008 said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what all this other contemporary bullshit has to do with history.  Amazing you were able to think of the name of an author.   I'm not familiar with his work, no doubt you can educate me as to the relevance here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you aren't familiar with the name - you have less than a 4th grade education. Still, the idiocy you mindlessly ape from DailyKOS is based on Howard Zinn.
> 
> I note with amusement your lack of grasp of the reference to Boorstin.
> 
> But then, there never was doubt that you are cretin.
Click to expand...


I see, you've committed yourself to the intensive study of left wing authors, but can't name any historians.  Maybe you're just on the wrong thread.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Discombobulated said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what all this other contemporary bullshit has to do with history.  Amazing you were able to think of the name of an author.   I'm not familiar with his work, no doubt you can educate me as to the relevance here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you aren't familiar with the name - you have less than a 4th grade education. Still, the idiocy you mindlessly ape from DailyKOS is based on Howard Zinn.
> 
> I note with amusement your lack of grasp of the reference to Boorstin.
> 
> But then, there never was doubt that you are cretin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see, you've committed yourself to the intensive study of left wing authors, but can't name any historians.  Maybe you're just on the wrong thread.
Click to expand...


Boorstin, left wing?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yeah, the National Historian under the Reagan administration is "left wing."

You should have finished grade school, seriously!


----------



## Discombobulated

Uncensored2008 said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you aren't familiar with the name - you have less than a 4th grade education. Still, the idiocy you mindlessly ape from DailyKOS is based on Howard Zinn.
> 
> I note with amusement your lack of grasp of the reference to Boorstin.
> 
> But then, there never was doubt that you are cretin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see, you've committed yourself to the intensive study of left wing authors, but can't name any historians.  Maybe you're just on the wrong thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boorstin, left wing?
> 
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> 
> Yeah, the National Historian under the Reagan administration is "left wing."
> 
> You should have finished grade school, seriously!
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure you wandered in here by mistake.   I know you're a little confused right now, but if you just go start another thread about something typically mindless you'll probably feel a lot better.


----------



## TheIceMan

thanatos144 said:


> Only idiots see freeing slaves and saving a country as being a traitor.  Same ignorant fools who should be democrats where all the ignorant bigots belong
> 
> tapatalk post



Only bigger idiots simplify and whitewash Lincoln's complete disregard for the US Constitution with "oh, he freed the slaves and saved a country".

He subjugated by force of arms states that entered the Union voluntarily and wished to leave the same way.

He suspended personal liberty.  Whatever the fuck THAT means.  Oh, thrown in jail indefinitely on a whim.

He basically took from the states any power protected by the 10th Amendment he got the urge to, and the 10th has been impotent since.

Other than THAT, fine man.


----------



## Discombobulated

TheIceMan said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only idiots see freeing slaves and saving a country as being a traitor.  Same ignorant fools who should be democrats where all the ignorant bigots belong
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only bigger idiots simplify and whitewash Lincoln's complete disregard for the US Constitution with "oh, he freed the slaves and saved a country".
> 
> He subjugated by force of arms states that entered the Union voluntarily and wished to leave the same way.
> 
> He suspended personal liberty.  Whatever the fuck THAT means.  Oh, thrown in jail indefinitely on a whim.
> 
> He basically took from the states any power protected by the 10th Amendment he got the urge to, and the 10th has been impotent since.
> 
> Other than THAT, fine man.
Click to expand...


The second sentence of your post is complete and utter horseshit.....otherwise known as the Confederate reconstructionist version of history.


----------



## TheIceMan

Discombobulated said:


> TheIceMan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only idiots see freeing slaves and saving a country as being a traitor.  Same ignorant fools who should be democrats where all the ignorant bigots belong
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only bigger idiots simplify and whitewash Lincoln's complete disregard for the US Constitution with "oh, he freed the slaves and saved a country".
> 
> He subjugated by force of arms states that entered the Union voluntarily and wished to leave the same way.
> 
> He suspended personal liberty.  Whatever the fuck THAT means.  Oh, thrown in jail indefinitely on a whim.
> 
> He basically took from the states any power protected by the 10th Amendment he got the urge to, and the 10th has been impotent since.
> 
> Other than THAT, fine man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The second sentence of your post is complete and utter horseshit.....otherwise known as the Confederate reconstructionist version of history.
Click to expand...


I figured your ass would troll back in here with an unloaded gun.  Got anything better than that pitiful response?  I'm all for letting you go back and try again.

Load your fucking gun this time.


----------



## gipper

Discombobulated said:


> TheIceMan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only idiots see freeing slaves and saving a country as being a traitor.  Same ignorant fools who should be democrats where all the ignorant bigots belong
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only bigger idiots simplify and whitewash Lincoln's complete disregard for the US Constitution with "oh, he freed the slaves and saved a country".
> 
> He subjugated by force of arms states that entered the Union voluntarily and wished to leave the same way.
> 
> He suspended personal liberty.  Whatever the fuck THAT means.  Oh, thrown in jail indefinitely on a whim.
> 
> He basically took from the states any power protected by the 10th Amendment he got the urge to, and the 10th has been impotent since.
> 
> Other than THAT, fine man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The second sentence of your post is complete and utter horseshit.....otherwise known as the Confederate reconstructionist version of history.
Click to expand...


Rather than spout nonsense, how about you tell us WHY that second sentence is utter horseshit?


----------



## mamooth

Confederate apologists are funny. Oh wait, they're not. They're regarding as a rather low form of vermin by most people.

Carry on, Confederate apologists. And good luck convincing anyone you're not the slavery-endorsing scumbags that you appear to be. Because slavery is so popular, you know.


----------



## Picaro

Discombobulated said:


> I can hardly wait to see the long list of historians who support the incredibly ludicrous idea of Lincoln being a traitor.   That should be an easy list for you to compile as authors like that tend to share their thoughts with the world through blogs rather than books.



Since I never made the claim that Lincoln was a traitor, why not ask those that have? Meanwhile, can you provide a link to where the academic community, or anybody else, appointed you the authority on 'legitimate scholarship' and 'pop culture revisionism'? Was McPherson a legitimate scholar or a 'pop culture revisionist' according to your 'authority'?


----------



## Picaro

mamooth said:


> Confederate apologists are funny. Oh wait, they're not. They're regarding as a rather low form of vermin by most people.
> 
> Carry on, Confederate apologists. And good luck convincing anyone you're not the slavery-endorsing scumbags that you appear to be. Because slavery is so popular, you know.



Who here is a 'Confederate apologist'? All I see are neurotics getting hysterical about some people pointing out some historical facts re Lincoln and the myths constructed around northern hypocrisies and hubris and the reasons Lincoln went to war. 

Would pointing out the Jim Crow laws in the South were based on the pre-Civil War Black Codes in northern states, including Lincoln's home state, and remained on the books after the Civil War be an example of 'Confederate apologizing and defending slavery', for instance?


----------



## Discombobulated

Picaro said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can hardly wait to see the long list of historians who support the incredibly ludicrous idea of Lincoln being a traitor.   That should be an easy list for you to compile as authors like that tend to share their thoughts with the world through blogs rather than books.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since I never made the claim that Lincoln was a traitor, why not ask those that have? Meanwhile, can you provide a link to where the academic community, or anybody else, appointed you the authority on 'legitimate scholarship' and 'pop culture revisionism'? Was McPherson a legitimate scholar or a 'pop culture revisionist' according to your 'authority'?
Click to expand...


Well I'm certain America is glad to know you don't think Lincoln was a traitor.  James McPherson would agree with you on that much.


----------



## Discombobulated

gipper said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheIceMan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only bigger idiots simplify and whitewash Lincoln's complete disregard for the US Constitution with "oh, he freed the slaves and saved a country".
> 
> He subjugated by force of arms states that entered the Union voluntarily and wished to leave the same way.
> 
> He suspended personal liberty.  Whatever the fuck THAT means.  Oh, thrown in jail indefinitely on a whim.
> 
> He basically took from the states any power protected by the 10th Amendment he got the urge to, and the 10th has been impotent since.
> 
> Other than THAT, fine man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The second sentence of your post is complete and utter horseshit.....otherwise known as the Confederate reconstructionist version of history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rather than spout nonsense, how about you tell us WHY that second sentence is utter horseshit?
Click to expand...


The is no Constitutional provision for secession, therefore no legal basis.


----------



## Discombobulated

TheIceMan said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheIceMan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only bigger idiots simplify and whitewash Lincoln's complete disregard for the US Constitution with "oh, he freed the slaves and saved a country".
> 
> He subjugated by force of arms states that entered the Union voluntarily and wished to leave the same way.
> 
> He suspended personal liberty.  Whatever the fuck THAT means.  Oh, thrown in jail indefinitely on a whim.
> 
> He basically took from the states any power protected by the 10th Amendment he got the urge to, and the 10th has been impotent since.
> 
> Other than THAT, fine man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The second sentence of your post is complete and utter horseshit.....otherwise known as the Confederate reconstructionist version of history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I figured your ass would troll back in here with an unloaded gun.  Got anything better than that pitiful response?  I'm all for letting you go back and try again.
> 
> Load your fucking gun this time.
Click to expand...


Yes, well put....you're a credit to historians everywhere.


----------



## Unkotare

Picaro said:


> Would pointing out the Jim Crow laws in the South were based on the pre-Civil War Black Codes in northern states...




You would be pointing out something untrue. The Black Codes were a specific legal creation in the former confederate states and were based on pre-Civil War slave laws in that region. The fact that northern states had a history of slavery and had discriminatory laws as well does not support your conclusion.


----------



## gipper

Discombobulated said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second sentence of your post is complete and utter horseshit.....otherwise known as the Confederate reconstructionist version of history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than spout nonsense, how about you tell us WHY that second sentence is utter horseshit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The is no Constitutional provision for secession, therefore no legal basis.
Click to expand...


So in your limited mind, only provisions provided for in the Constitution, are legal.

Do you fail to see how wrong that is?


----------



## gipper

To believe Lincoln a great POTUS, is to believe anything.

He ignored the Constitution repeatedly and pushed a nation to war, causing 850k deaths and near total destruction of half the nation...all for statist reasons.  For this, he is venerated.

Nothing better explains this psychosis other than history is written by the victors...and sadly, many Americans have accepted the lies by the statists.


----------



## Discombobulated

gipper said:


> To believe Lincoln a great POTUS, is to believe anything.
> 
> He ignored the Constitution repeatedly and pushed a nation to war, causing 850k deaths and near total destruction of half the nation...all for statist reasons.  For this, he is venerated.
> 
> Nothing better explains this psychosis other than history is written by the victors...and sadly, many Americans have accepted the lies by the statists.



Not much of a historian are you.  Try reading a book once in while.


----------



## thanatos144

Perfectly funny and valid post but some whiny racist confederate bitch would get me banned for it.


----------



## Discombobulated

gipper said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than spout nonsense, how about you tell us WHY that second sentence is utter horseshit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The is no Constitutional provision for secession, therefore no legal basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in your limited mind, only provisions provided for in the Constitution, are legal.
> 
> Do you fail to see how wrong that is?
Click to expand...


So in your limited mind the Constitution only works when it's convenient for you.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Discombobulated said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see, you've committed yourself to the intensive study of left wing authors, but can't name any historians.  Maybe you're just on the wrong thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boorstin, left wing?
> 
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> 
> Yeah, the National Historian under the Reagan administration is "left wing."
> 
> You should have finished grade school, seriously!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure you wandered in here by mistake.   I know you're a little confused right now, but if you just go start another thread about something typically mindless you'll probably feel a lot better.
Click to expand...


I'm curious, does your "Betty White" routine of non-sequitur ever work?

I mean, is there anyone who does NOT see you as an ignorant fool?


----------



## Discombobulated

Uncensored2008 said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boorstin, left wing?
> 
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> 
> Yeah, the National Historian under the Reagan administration is "left wing."
> 
> You should have finished grade school, seriously!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure you wandered in here by mistake.   I know you're a little confused right now, but if you just go start another thread about something typically mindless you'll probably feel a lot better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm curious, does your "Betty White" routine of non-sequitur ever work?
> 
> I mean, is there anyone who does NOT see you as an ignorant fool?
Click to expand...


I have no idea what this incoherent scree of nonsense means.


----------



## Uncensored2008

mamooth said:


> Confederate apologists are funny. Oh wait, they're not. They're regarding as a rather low form of vermin by most people.
> 
> Carry on, Confederate apologists. And good luck convincing anyone you're not the slavery-endorsing scumbags that you appear to be. Because slavery is so popular, you know.



There may be "confederate apologists," I've certainly run into them. But to equate criticism of Lincoln's criminal disregard for the Constitution to apologetics for the antebellum South is the act of a moron.

The South was a pseudo-Feudal shit hole, where a landed gentry perpetrated an effective tyranny over slaves and "free" whites alike. The Republic was a farce in the hands of the tyrants who ruled the South.

Does this sound as if I am just terribly apologetic for the antebellum South?

So explain to me, how acknowledging the FACT of criminal acts by Lincoln, supports the South? The problem is that you are a democrat, trained by your faction that there are only two possibilities, absolute obedience to your party, and hated enemies. You cannot grasp the concept that there can be wrong on both sides.


----------



## gipper

Uncensored2008 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Confederate apologists are funny. Oh wait, they're not. They're regarding as a rather low form of vermin by most people.
> 
> Carry on, Confederate apologists. And good luck convincing anyone you're not the slavery-endorsing scumbags that you appear to be. Because slavery is so popular, you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There may be "confederate apologists," I've certainly run into them. But to equate criticism of Lincoln's criminal disregard for the Constitution to apologetics for the antebellum South is the act of a moron.
> 
> The South was a pseudo-Feudal shit hole, where a landed gentry perpetrated an effective tyranny over slaves and "free" whites alike. The Republic was a farce in the hands of the tyrants who ruled the South.
> 
> Does this sound as if I am just terrible apologetic for the antebellum South?
> 
> So explain to me, how acknowledging the FACT of criminal acts by Lincoln, supports the South? The problem is that you are a democrat, trained by your faction that there are only two possibilities, absolute obedience to your party, and hated enemies. You cannot grasp the concept that there can be wrong on both sides.
Click to expand...


I can explain it.

Anyone who criticizes their saint (dishonest abe), must love slavery and the Confederacy.  

The logic of simpletons on display for all to see.  

They have been so thoroughly brainwashed by the Statists, they are incapable of thinking logically.


----------



## gipper

Discombobulated said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The is no Constitutional provision for secession, therefore no legal basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in your limited mind, only provisions provided for in the Constitution, are legal.
> 
> Do you fail to see how wrong that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in your limited mind the Constitution only works when it's convenient for you.
Click to expand...


Hey Dummy, read the 10th amendment and do NOT get back to me.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Discombobulated said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure you wandered in here by mistake.   I know you're a little confused right now, but if you just go start another thread about something typically mindless you'll probably feel a lot better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious, does your "Betty White" routine of non-sequitur ever work?
> 
> I mean, is there anyone who does NOT see you as an ignorant fool?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea what this incoherent scree of nonsense means.
Click to expand...


I realize that. Your failure to complete a primary education leaves you in a position of failing to comprehend most of the material you are presented with.


----------



## Discombobulated

Uncensored2008 said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious, does your "Betty White" routine of non-sequitur ever work?
> 
> I mean, is there anyone who does NOT see you as an ignorant fool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what this incoherent scree of nonsense means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I realize that. Your failure to complete a primary education leaves you in a position of failing to comprehend most of the material you are presented with.
Click to expand...


You remind me of this....

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUZgPfdkWis"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUZgPfdkWis[/ame]


----------



## Discombobulated

gipper said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So in your limited mind, only provisions provided for in the Constitution, are legal.
> 
> Do you fail to see how wrong that is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in your limited mind the Constitution only works when it's convenient for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Dummy, read the 10th amendment and do NOT get back to me.
Click to expand...


It would be a waste of time any way......you can't learn.


----------



## Discombobulated

Of course the Tenth Amendment in no way addresses the question of secession.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Discombobulated said:


> You remind me of this....



You remind me of this...







BUT you're not as smart, or as well educated.


----------



## Discombobulated

Uncensored2008 said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You remind me of this....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You remind me of this...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BUT you're not as smart, or as well educated.
Click to expand...


[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUZgPfdkWis"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUZgPfdkWis[/ame]


----------



## Uncensored2008

Discombobulated said:


> Of course the Tenth Amendment in no way addresses the question of secession.



You are mentally retarded and have an education inferior to an inner-city second grader. Thus far, you have failed to offer anything that is remotely on topic or meaningful.

So understand retard, I expect no answer from you - you have not the wits; you are merely a spring board.

To the Khmer Rouge democrats in the forum, what is the distinction between a "union" and and "empire?" Why was the antebellum United States considered a union?


----------



## Discombobulated

Uncensored2008 said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the Tenth Amendment in no way addresses the question of secession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are mentally retarded and have an education inferior to an inner-city second grader. Thus far, you have failed to offer anything that is remotely on topic or meaningful.
> 
> So understand retard, I expect no answer from you - you have not the wits; you are merely a spring board.
> 
> To the Khmer Rouge democrats in the forum, what is the distinction between a "union" and and "empire?" Why was the antebellum United States considered a union?
Click to expand...


You'd seem just a little bit smarter if you had even this many responses.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUZgPfdkWis"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUZgPfdkWis[/ame]


----------



## gipper

Discombobulated said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the Tenth Amendment in no way addresses the question of secession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are mentally retarded and have an education inferior to an inner-city second grader. Thus far, you have failed to offer anything that is remotely on topic or meaningful.
> 
> So understand retard, I expect no answer from you - you have not the wits; you are merely a spring board.
> 
> To the Khmer Rouge democrats in the forum, what is the distinction between a "union" and and "empire?" Why was the antebellum United States considered a union?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd seem just a little bit smarter if you had even this many responses.
> 
> [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUZgPfdkWis"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUZgPfdkWis[/ame]
Click to expand...


Why do you bother coming to this board, when you add nothing of value to the discussion?


----------



## Discombobulated

gipper said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are mentally retarded and have an education inferior to an inner-city second grader. Thus far, you have failed to offer anything that is remotely on topic or meaningful.
> 
> So understand retard, I expect no answer from you - you have not the wits; you are merely a spring board.
> 
> To the Khmer Rouge democrats in the forum, what is the distinction between a "union" and and "empire?" Why was the antebellum United States considered a union?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd seem just a little bit smarter if you had even this many responses.
> 
> [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUZgPfdkWis"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUZgPfdkWis[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you bother coming to this board, when you add nothing of value to the discussion?
Click to expand...


I think it's time for your next lesson.  Pay careful attention and please do get back to me about what you've learned.

Civil War Person Year 1864 | Video | C-SPAN.org


----------



## Uncensored2008

Discombobulated said:


> I think it's time for your next lesson.  Pay careful attention and please do get back to me about what you've learned.
> 
> Civil War Person Year 1864 | Video | C-SPAN.org








Thanks Cletus, we can always depend on a certain level of "quality" to your posts.


----------



## Discombobulated

Uncensored2008 said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's time for your next lesson.  Pay careful attention and please do get back to me about what you've learned.
> 
> Civil War Person Year 1864 | Video | C-SPAN.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Cletus, we can always depend on a certain level of "quality" to your posts.
Click to expand...


Well if that lesson is too complicated for you lets try something more your speed.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUjG1HSSaGI"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUjG1HSSaGI[/ame]


----------



## Picaro

If the Republicans thought the Constitution prevented secession, they wouldn't have waited until 1868 and had a stacked Supreme Court rule it 'unconstitutional'.


----------



## thanatos144

I am so glad the uneducated confederates lost....We have enough trailer trash in the country.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

yeah trailer trash like you who actually think reagan was a great president.lol.


----------



## thanatos144

9/11 inside job said:


> yeah trailer trash like you who actually think reagan was a great president.lol.



who lifted up the rock you crawled out from under?


----------



## Rogue 9

Uncensored2008 said:


> But you said treason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I sure didn't.
Click to expand...

Really?  Then what's the title of this thread?  You came in defending the claim that Obama is the worst traitor in the history of America; anyone can click the quoted post links back through the chain and see it.  Being a traitor means you have committed treason.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Rogue 9 said:


> Really?  Then what's the title of this thread?



Whacka retard...

Smack one down, another pops up.



> You came in defending the claim that Obama is the worst traitor in the history of America; anyone can click the quoted post links back through the chain and see it.  Being a traitor means you have committed treason.



Izzatrite sploogy? Well, why don't you go right ahead and post those links.

Oh and sploogy, your mentally retarded twin made claim that I said LINCOLN was a traitor.

Neither his claim nor yours has any merit, but then the two of you combined don't add up to a two digit IQ.....


----------



## Discombobulated

Uncensored2008 said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Then what's the title of this thread?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whacka retard...
> 
> Smack one down, another pops up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You came in defending the claim that Obama is the worst traitor in the history of America; anyone can click the quoted post links back through the chain and see it.  Being a traitor means you have committed treason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Izzatrite sploogy? Well, why don't you go right ahead and post those links.
> 
> Oh and sploogy, your mentally retarded twin made claim that I said LINCOLN was a traitor.
> 
> Neither his claim nor yours has any merit, but then the two of you combined don't add up to a two digit IQ.....
Click to expand...


Are you still trying to think of the name of a real historian who can validate that claim you didn't make?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Discombobulated said:


> Are you still trying to think of the name of a real historian who can validate that claim you didn't make?



Are you still trying to get the last bit out of that can of spray paint you're huffing?


----------



## Discombobulated

Uncensored2008 said:


> Discombobulated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still trying to think of the name of a real historian who can validate that claim you didn't make?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still trying to get the last bit out of that can of spray paint you're huffing?
Click to expand...


I hadn't thought of that, but maybe I should consider it as a good faith effort to try and  understand your thinking.  Good suggestion.


----------



## HenryBHough

Before we can honestly rate who might be the worst traitor in history we really should wait until Democrats come up with a nominee for 2016.  No need to rush to conclusions.


----------



## TheIceMan

HenryBHough said:


> Before we can honestly rate who might be the worst traitor in history we really should wait until Democrats come up with a nominee for 2016.  No need to rush to conclusions.



Minus the fanboys and their hero-worships, I don't see why it's so serious people have to act like idiots.  The question in the OP is CLEARLY a matter of personal opinion.  It doesn't call for all the wailing and gnashing of teeth.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many possibilities: Aldrich Ames, the Rosenbergs, or Benedict Arnold himself.  My nominee is Harry Dexter White.
> 
> quote: 1. White was the real author of the Morgenthau plan to "turn Germany into a potato field," which when leaked, united non-Nazis with Nazis, stiffened resistance, and prolonged the war.
> 2. White used his position in the Treasury Department to develop a hostile U.S. policy toward Japan. The reason was to distract Japan from their plans to attack the Soviet Union and draw the U.S. into the war as an ally with the Soviet Union.
> 3. White was the author of an extreme ultimatum that Japan could not comply with in the days just prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
> 4. White delayed financial support mandated by law to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist Chinese government causing the triumph of Mao Tse-Tung's Communist Chinese government.
> 5. White was instrumental in handing over the Allied Military mark printing plates to the Soviets. This caused a $250,000,000 deficit in the occupational government budget paid out by the U.S. Treasury. This in effect amounted to the US taxpayer paying the salaries of Soviet occupation troops at a time when US/Soviet relations were deteriorating precisely because of the presence and behavior of Soviet occupation forces in Eastern Europe.
> 
> LINK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ed Snowden is pretty high up there, top 10 material for sure
> 
> When whistleblowers release information that shows the government is acting illegally, they should be protected under the law. Indeed - if that's all they do, they are heros.
> 
> Ed Snowden revealed much more than illegal activity. Much of what he revealed was methods  for legal NSA activity. Being a whistleblower doesn't entitle you to do as you please with regards to other secret information. For that he is a traitor - and for taking refuge in Russia, he is a coward and defector.
Click to expand...


comedy gold that this banned troll says snowden is a traiter yet every president since LBJ is NOT.funny stuff there.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Rogue 9 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you said treason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I sure didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  Then what's the title of this thread?  You came in defending the claim that Obama is the worst traitor in the history of America; anyone can click the quoted post links back through the chain and see it.  Being a traitor means you have committed treason.
Click to expand...


He is right that Obama is a traiter.however the troll ignores the FACTS that EVERY american president since LBJ was a traiter to the american people as well.


----------



## Uncensored2008

9/11 inside job said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I sure didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Then what's the title of this thread?  You came in defending the claim that Obama is the worst traitor in the history of America; anyone can click the quoted post links back through the chain and see it.  Being a traitor means you have committed treason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is right that Obama is a traiter.however the troll ignores the FACTSA that EVERY american president since LBJ was a traiter to the american people as well.
Click to expand...


Psst sparky? "traitor," with an "o."


----------



## LA RAM FAN

HenryBHough said:


> Before we can honestly rate who might be the worst traitor in history we really should wait until Democrats come up with a nominee for 2016.  No need to rush to conclusions.



the REAL question people should be asking is -will we ever get a president who is NOT a traiter to the american people? Because the truth-which is uncomfortable for them to hear,is that we have not had one who wasnt since LBJ.everyone of them have been a traiter.snowden was a hero.anyone he thinks he is a traiter is a stupid fuck.accoring to their warped logic, daniel ellsberg was a traiter to the american people as well.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

i see someone farted in here before my last post.

that means i have you on ignore agent troll.


----------



## Rogue 9

Uncensored2008 said:


> You came in defending the claim that Obama is the worst traitor in the history of America; anyone can click the quoted post links back through the chain and see it.  Being a traitor means you have committed treason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Izzatrite sploogy? Well, why don't you go right ahead and post those links.
Click to expand...

Sure.  Here you go.  This conversation thread started with me questioning TruthSeeker's (hah, what a joke) claim that Obama is, specifically, the worst traitor in U.S. history.  You took up his argument, answering the question of what, specifically, he has done that is treasonous with your line about 18 U.S. Code § 875.  Don't take up a question you aren't prepared to answer.


9/11 inside job said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I sure didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Then what's the title of this thread?  You came in defending the claim that Obama is the worst traitor in the history of America; anyone can click the quoted post links back through the chain and see it.  Being a traitor means you have committed treason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is right that Obama is a traiter.however the troll ignores the FACTS that EVERY american president since LBJ was a traiter to the american people as well.
Click to expand...

Really?  They have all waged war against the United States or adhered to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort?  I'm afraid that's going to require specific examples of war-waging behavior (against the United States, mind) for all of them.  Again.  The Constitution has very strict requirements for conviction on treason charges, and "Because I say so on the Internet!" doesn't make the cut.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Rogue 9 said:


> Sure.  Here you go.  This conversation thread started with me questioning TruthSeeker's (hah, what a joke) claim that Obama is, specifically, the worst traitor in U.S. history.  You took up his argument, answering the question of what, specifically, he has done that is treasonous with your line about 18 U.S. Code § 875.  Don't take up a question you aren't prepared to answer.



So, saying that Obama should be impeached for extortion, is calling him a traitor?

There's a reason you're a leftist...... 

You are incredibly stupid.


----------



## regent

It is becoming apparent that the biggest traitors in American history were its presidents. Why presidents are such traitors and why Americans elect traitors is not really clear.  In any case,  maybe the question should have read: What president was America's biggest traitor?


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> It is becoming apparent that the biggest traitors in American history were its presidents. Why presidents are such traitors and why Americans elect traitors is not really clear.  In any case,  maybe the question should have read: What president was America's biggest traitor?




The answer is still FDR.


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is becoming apparent that the biggest traitors in American history were its presidents. Why presidents are such traitors and why Americans elect traitors is not really clear.  In any case,  maybe the question should have read: What president was America's biggest traitor?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is still FDR.
Click to expand...

Well let's see how your answer is doing?  FDR has been rated as one of the three greatest American presidents, since historians began rating presidents in 1948. That's almost sixty years that FDR has been rated in the top three presidents along with Washington and Lincoln. Add to that 238 most noted historians,  in the most recent rating, rated FDR as America's greatest, outscoring even Bush. 
FDR also holds the record for the number of times the people elected him president, and we should note that Republicans worked very hard to make sure FDR holds that record, perhaps as long as there is an America. 
But most importantly the people of FDR's generation those who lived during that time, the ones that went through the greatest depression and greatest war in American history believed he was the greatest. 
But we should take note that you believe him to be a traitor.


----------



## HenryBHough

I was thinking more of Eleanor.  FDR wasn't firing on all cylinders but somebody acting as president certainly was.....


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is becoming apparent that the biggest traitors in American history were its presidents. Why presidents are such traitors and why Americans elect traitors is not really clear.  In any case,  maybe the question should have read: What president was America's biggest traitor?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is still FDR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well let's see how your answer is doing? ...
Click to expand...




We can see how you are doing. Still not very well at thinking, it appears. If you never try you'll never improve.


----------



## thanatos144

Rand Paul for endorsing Mitch McConnell and proving he is no better then a Bush


----------



## Rogue 9

Uncensored2008 said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  Here you go.  This conversation thread started with me questioning TruthSeeker's (hah, what a joke) claim that Obama is, specifically, the worst traitor in U.S. history.  You took up his argument, answering the question of what, specifically, he has done that is treasonous with your line about 18 U.S. Code § 875.  Don't take up a question you aren't prepared to answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, saying that Obama should be impeached for extortion, is calling him a traitor?
> 
> There's a reason you're a leftist......
> 
> You are incredibly stupid.
Click to expand...

I'm not a leftist.  I'm saying you gave the wrong answer to the question, because you did.  At the very best you just outright changed the subject, since this thread, may I remind you, is about *traitors,* and you started blathering about things that are *not treason.*


----------



## Picaro

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is becoming apparent that the biggest traitors in American history were its presidents. Why presidents are such traitors and why Americans elect traitors is not really clear.  In any case,  maybe the question should have read: What president was America's biggest traitor?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is still FDR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well let's see how your answer is doing?  FDR has been rated as one of the three greatest American presidents, since historians began rating presidents in 1948. That's almost sixty years that FDR has been rated in the top three presidents along with Washington and Lincoln. Add to that 238 most noted historians,  in the most recent rating, rated FDR as America's greatest, outscoring even Bush.
> FDR also holds the record for the number of times the people elected him president, and we should note that Republicans worked very hard to make sure FDR holds that record, perhaps as long as there is an America.
> But most importantly the people of FDR's generation those who lived during that time, the ones that went through the greatest depression and greatest war in American history believed he was the greatest.
> But we should take note that you believe him to be a traitor.
Click to expand...


Some angry teenager hoping to get support for his getting a big giant reparations check from the government would be running around making absurd and ridiculous claims.


----------



## TheIceMan

Picaro said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is still FDR.
> 
> 
> 
> Well let's see how your answer is doing?  FDR has been rated as one of the three greatest American presidents, since historians began rating presidents in 1948. That's almost sixty years that FDR has been rated in the top three presidents along with Washington and Lincoln. Add to that 238 most noted historians,  in the most recent rating, rated FDR as America's greatest, outscoring even Bush.
> FDR also holds the record for the number of times the people elected him president, and we should note that Republicans worked very hard to make sure FDR holds that record, perhaps as long as there is an America.
> But most importantly the people of FDR's generation those who lived during that time, the ones that went through the greatest depression and greatest war in American history believed he was the greatest.
> But we should take note that you believe him to be a traitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some angry teenager hoping to get support for his getting a big giant reparations check from the government would be running around making absurd and ridiculous claims.
Click to expand...


What does that say about those who are doing the rating?  Lincoln.  Roosevelt.  Roosevelt was a traitor to individual liberty.  His socialist programs accomplished little.  It took a war to end the Great Depression, not the "new Deal".


----------



## Picaro

TheIceMan said:


> What does that say about those who are doing the rating?  Lincoln.  Roosevelt.



I'm no Lincoln fan, he was a sociopath and mass murderer, and some of Roosevelt's programs didn't work, his agricultural subsidies ended up benefiting mainly welthy land owners rather than sharecroppers, the latter being the majority of farmers, and the dumping of food to keep prices high was a ridiculous policy in the face of so much unemployment and poverty, but many of the programs did provide jobs and incomes for millions of families, and the spending was necessary, since many of the rich merely barricaded themselves on their estates and hid behind private armies and did nothing to alleviate the Depression, one they themselves caused in the first place.



> Roosevelt was a traitor to individual liberty.  His socialist programs accomplished little.  It took a war to end the Great Depression, not the "new Deal".


They accomplished quite a bit actually, and the economy showed an almost unbroken rise back up to pre-Depression levels by 1937 or so, took a dip around the time of the Supreme Court battles, and then began rising again. Unemployment remained high, around 10%, but nowhere near Depression levels of 1930 and after, but those who did have jobs did okay, since prices and the cost of living were low.

You do know he was elected four times, right? ...

I like how the 'conservatives' contradict themselves by claiming 'the War ended the Depression', while out of the other sides of their mouths they rant about government spending being bad and a failure. The cognitive dissonance is blatantly schizophrenic.


----------



## TheIceMan

Picaro said:


> TheIceMan said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that say about those who are doing the rating?  Lincoln.  Roosevelt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm no Lincoln fan, he was a sociopath and mass murderer, and some of Roosevelt's programs didn't work, his agricultural subsidies ended up benefiting mainly welthy land owners rather than sharecroppers, the latter being the majority of farmers, and the dumping of food to keep prices high was a ridiculous policy in the face of so much unemployment and poverty, but many of the programs did provide jobs and incomes for millions of families, and the spending was necessary, since many of the rich merely barricaded themselves on their estates and hid behind private armies and did nothing to alleviate the Depression, one they themselves caused in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roosevelt was a traitor to individual liberty.  His socialist programs accomplished little.  It took a war to end the Great Depression, not the "new Deal".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They accomplished quite a bit actually, and the economy showed an almost unbroken rise back up to pre-Depression levels by 1937 or so, took a dip around the time of the Supreme Court battles, and then began rising again. Unemployment remained high, around 10%, but nowhere near Depression levels of 1930 and after, but those who did have jobs did okay, since prices and the cost of living were low.
> 
> You do know he was elected four times, right? ...
> 
> I like how the 'conservatives' contradict themselves by claiming 'the War ended the Depression', while out of the other sides of their mouths they rant about government spending being bad and a failure. The cognitive dissonance is blatantly schizophrenic.
Click to expand...


Yeah, he was elected 4 times.  How convenient, that war.  

I don't agree with your numbers, but I WILL give you points for at least an intelligent response.

The fact is, Roosevelt involved us in a war that was not our business because it was his "out".  Isn't that what you so-called "liberals' blame Bush for?   Not seeing a big bit of difference here.  

Politics dictates.  And it crosses party lines.  Bush had the power and and  bunch of limp-wrists for Congressmen.  The left will lock-step and shove their stupid shit up your ass.

Therein lies the difference.


----------



## S.J.

Pretty much every Democrat is a traitor, either directly or indirectly.


----------



## Picaro

TheIceMan said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, he was elected 4 times.  How convenient, that war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The war had nothing to do with the first two elections, and as for the wartime elections the Republicans had nothing better to offer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with your numbers,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get mine from the economic data available.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, Roosevelt involved us in a war that was not our business because it was his "out".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is Japan and Germany involved us in a war; they didn't feel like leaving us out of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that what you so-called "liberals' blame Bush for?   Not seeing a big bit of difference here.
> 
> Politics dictates.  And it crosses party lines.  Bush had the power and and  bunch of limp-wrists for Congressmen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had no problem with Bush finishing off Saddam, so I don't 'blame' him for that; I blame him for turning a blind eye to massive corruption and the stupidity of 'nation building' fantasies among a bunch of medieval savages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The left will lock-step and shove their stupid **** up your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the 'LEft' is no different than the Right? I agree. But then I recognize the difference between neo-Liberals and real liberals. The brie and chardonnay type Neo-liberals are just politically correct Republicans, and have pretty much the same contempt for this country that the brie and chardonnay Republicans do, which is why htey work together so well.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## zen

Nobody called Southern Soldiers traitors until very recently. The last Confederate veteran was buried by the US Marines with full military honors in about 1958 (I think)...you know what Bragg, Lee, Pickett, Jackson and Hood all have in common? Yep, they were all Confederate Generals. AND, they all have currently occupied US Army forts named after them. You don't name forts after traitors. The Biggest traitors in US history? American LIBERAL/NEOMARXISTS bar none...traitors, criminals, cowards to a person...

Picaro...government spending/war spending results in short-term economic gains and long-term economic ruin, particularly when the spending is done at deficit. We will soon see the results of 30-40 years of deficit spending, we don't need to argue, we just need to watch. Personally, I get tired of hearing about post-war prosperity, and how we can bring it back with atavistic tax-and-spend policy a la Paul Krugman ( I miss my Grandparents too, Paul). The entire manufacturing base of Europe and Japan had been destroyed. The manufacturing centers in China, Viet Nam and the rest of Asia did not yet exist. We stood alone as a manufacturing power house. As soon as the rest of the world got rebuilt/built we began losing ground because of a combination of bureaucracy and regulatory environment, high capital costs, complete lack of vision/leadership and (last, least important) labor costs.


----------



## regent

The framers devoted some thought to treason and made an effort to define and limit the punishment, and all that for a reason. Anyone want to give the reason the framers and founders were so touchy about the word treason?


----------



## LA RAM FAN

S.J. said:


> Pretty much every Democrat is a traitor, either directly or indirectly.



Like every republican president since Hoover is NOT?


----------



## Rogue 9

regent said:


> The framers devoted some thought to treason and made an effort to define and limit the punishment, and all that for a reason. Anyone want to give the reason the framers and founders were so touchy about the word treason?


Yeah.  The Crown of England was in the habit of accusing anyone it didn't like of treason and throwing them in the Tower to rot.  The framers, for understandable reasons, thought this was a bad idea.  It's why I've been posting the way I have in here; careless accusations of treason lead to nothing good.


----------



## S.J.

9/11 inside job said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much every Democrat is a traitor, either directly or indirectly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like every republican president since Hoover is NOT?
Click to expand...

I didn't say "every Democrat president", I said "every Democrat".  And no, Republican presidents have NOT been traitors.


----------



## Rogue 9

S.J. said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much every Democrat is a traitor, either directly or indirectly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like every republican president since Hoover is NOT?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say "every Democrat president", I said "every Democrat".  And no, Republican presidents have NOT been traitors.
Click to expand...

You will, of course, provide the necessary evidence that every single registered Democrat has waged war against the United States or adhered to their enemies, etc?  Personally I think that sounds like a tall order, but evidently you think you can, so go for it, champ.


----------



## S.J.

Rogue 9 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like every republican president since Hoover is NOT?
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say "every Democrat president", I said "every Democrat".  And no, Republican presidents have NOT been traitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You will, of course, provide the necessary evidence that every single registered Democrat has waged war against the United States or adhered to their enemies, etc?  Personally I think that sounds like a tall order, but evidently you think you can, so go for it, champ.
Click to expand...

If you voted for someone who has supported policies and legislation that weakens or undermines our Constitution and the principals of freedom, as laid out by our Founding Fathers, then yes, you are a traitor.  The Democratic Party has shown us repeatedly over the past 6 years it is willing to do this, so if you voted Democrat you are indeed a traitor.  Is that clear enough for you, champ?


----------



## Rogue 9

S.J. said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say "every Democrat president", I said "every Democrat".  And no, Republican presidents have NOT been traitors.
> 
> 
> 
> You will, of course, provide the necessary evidence that every single registered Democrat has waged war against the United States or adhered to their enemies, etc?  Personally I think that sounds like a tall order, but evidently you think you can, so go for it, champ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you voted for someone who has supported policies and legislation that weakens or undermines our Constitution and the principals of freedom, as laid out by our Founding Fathers, then yes, you are a traitor.  The Democratic Party has shown us repeatedly over the past 6 years it is willing to do this, so if you voted Democrat you are indeed a traitor.  Is that clear enough for you, champ?
Click to expand...

What you're defining is sedition, not treason.  Try it again.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

S.J. said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much every Democrat is a traitor, either directly or indirectly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like every republican president since Hoover is NOT?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say "every Democrat president", I said "every Democrat".  And no, Republican presidents have NOT been traitors.
Click to expand...


you are obviously working for the RNC.you should start a comedy club.because this is what you are so full of. pretty much is saying almost all and you have no evidence of that where I can EASILY show proof that every republican president since Hoover has been a traiter to the american people.thats too simple and easy.

better get off that crack you been smoking bubba.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

S.J. said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say "every Democrat president", I said "every Democrat".  And no, Republican presidents have NOT been traitors.
> 
> 
> 
> You will, of course, provide the necessary evidence that every single registered Democrat has waged war against the United States or adhered to their enemies, etc?  Personally I think that sounds like a tall order, but evidently you think you can, so go for it, champ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you voted for someone who has supported policies and legislation that weakens or undermines our Constitution and the principals of freedom, as laid out by our Founding Fathers, then yes, you are a traitor.  The Democratic Party has shown us repeatedly over the past 6 years it is willing to do this, so if you voted Democrat you are indeed a traitor.  Is that clear enough for you, champ?
Click to expand...


you're just crippling your arguments FOR ME.you said in the last SIX years.last time i checked,OBOMINATION was the last DEMO president that served in the white house the last six years.ONE democrat president who every thinking american knows is a traiter.BIG WOW,thats sure proving almost all of them in our history is.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Rogue 9 said:


> You will, of course, provide the necessary evidence that every single registered Democrat has waged war against the United States or adhered to their enemies, etc?  Personally I think that sounds like a tall order, but evidently you think you can, so go for it, champ.



That's a bit of a sticky-wicky.

The democrat party was taken over by the radical left in 1968. Since that time, a war has been waged on the culture and value system of America, using the ClowardPiven strategy with the express purpose of revoking the Constitutional Republic and establishing an authoritarian, socialist state. 

Does that meet the level of "waging war" that the Constitution lists? Maybe. But the real question is "are all democrats complicit?" Obviously not. Voting democrat is like smoking. It is deadly and stupid, but those who do either are usually deluded into thinking that they are exempt from reality. Smokers don't plan to die a horrible death of lung cancer, even though their actions lead to it. Those who vote democrat don't plan to have the nation fall into a totalitarian cesspool, even though their actions lead to it.

Stupidity is not treason.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

someone farted in here.


----------



## S.J.

9/11 inside job said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like every republican president since Hoover is NOT?
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say "every Democrat president", I said "every Democrat".  And no, Republican presidents have NOT been traitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are obviously working for the RNC.you should start a comedy club.because this is what you are so full of. pretty much is saying almost all and you have no evidence of that where I can EASILY show proof that every republican president since Hoover has been a traiter to the american people.thats too simple and easy.
> 
> better get off that crack you been smoking bubba.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but with a name like "9/11 inside job", it's hard to take you seriously enough to waste time on.  Learn how to use capital letters, commas, and periods and you'll be taken more seriously.  Oh, and stop flooding the page with useless icons.  It doesn't make your arguments any more credible.


----------



## regent

In merrie old England if someone belched before the King he was accused of treason. Knowing this the framers defined treason in the Constitution and the number accused, tried and convicted of treason in America is quite small. We still use the merrie old England approach however, and accuse our political leaders of treason not for belching, but for not acting or talking the way we think they should act or talk.


----------



## Uncensored2008

9/11 inside job said:


> someone farted in here.



Oh do fuck off, you mindless troll.


----------



## Uncensored2008

regent said:


> In merrie old England if someone belched before the King he was accused of treason. Knowing this the framers defined treason in the Constitution and the number accused, tried and convicted of treason in America is quite small. We still use the merrie old England approach however, and accuse our political leaders of treason not for belching, but for not acting or talking the way we think they should act or talk.



I don't use treason lightly. I've not accused Obama of treason - he is a criminal who should be impeached, but that isn't the same as a traitor.

Interstate extortion is a felony - Obama belongs in prison for it - but it is not treason.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

two farts in a row from you CENSORED.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

S.J. said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say "every Democrat president", I said "every Democrat".  And no, Republican presidents have NOT been traitors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are obviously working for the RNC.you should start a comedy club.because this is what you are so full of. pretty much is saying almost all and you have no evidence of that where I can EASILY show proof that every republican president since Hoover has been a traiter to the american people.thats too simple and easy.
> 
> better get off that crack you been smoking bubba.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but with a name like "9/11 inside job", it's hard to take you seriously enough to waste time on.  Learn how to use capital letters, commas, and periods and you'll be taken more seriously.  Oh, and stop flooding the page with useless icons.  It doesn't make your arguments any more credible.
Click to expand...


cant help it that you wont get off the crack you been smoking,thats your fault,not mine. oh that comment just proves how ignorant you are and have no clue about the laws of physics since to accept the governments version of events that day,you have to ignore the laws of physics scientists have gone by for thousands of years.

so in your warped acid  world you live in,expert pilots from around the world saying they could never have done all those incredible  air manuevers in the air with an airliner the government says the alleged highjackers did in the air, saying over the years it is an impossible feat to pull off for starters,just ONE fact  I can bring up  that proves the government is full of shit,somehow according to your warped drugged out mind,YOUR logic is those pilots are wrong and the goverment and the LAMESTREAM media are right? okay gotcha. seriously,you should get a comedy club going.

oh and love how  when you are cornered you evade facts and change the subject talking about grammar refusing to admit you are smoking crack.  oh and you're one to talk,you cant even count.

when you were cornerd with that fact,you played dodgeball and changed the subject to grammar. talk about someone who has no credibility.someone who listens to what our corrupt government instittutions and the CIA controlled media tell them instead of highly qualified experts in their field. sorry cant help the smileys,you wont lay off the crack your smoking and you keep making me laugh so i cant help it funny man.


what hypocrisy,YOU lost your credibility on this thread a few pages ago with this childish retarded comment below that I would expect out of a 2 or 3 year old such as CENSORED.


And no, Republican presidents have NOT been traitors.



STILL waiting for you to get off the crack you being smoking charlie.


----------



## S.J.

9/11 inside job said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are obviously working for the RNC.you should start a comedy club.because this is what you are so full of. pretty much is saying almost all and you have no evidence of that where I can EASILY show proof that every republican president since Hoover has been a traiter to the american people.thats too simple and easy.
> 
> better get off that crack you been smoking bubba.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but with a name like "9/11 inside job", it's hard to take you seriously enough to waste time on.  Learn how to use capital letters, commas, and periods and you'll be taken more seriously.  Oh, and stop flooding the page with useless icons.  It doesn't make your arguments any more credible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> cant help it that you wont get off the crack you been smoking,thats your fault,not mine. oh that comment just proves how ignorant you are and have no clue about the laws of physics since to accept the governments version of events that day,you have to ignore the laws of physics scientists have gone by for thousands of years.
> 
> so in your warped acid  world you live in,expert pilots from around the world saying they could never have done all those incredible  air manuevers in the air with an airliner the government says the alleged highjackers did in the air, saying over the years it is an impossible feat to pull off for starters,just ONE fact  I can bring up  that proves the government is full of shit,somehow according to your warped drugged out mind,YOUR logic is those pilots are wrong and the goverment and the LAMESTREAM media are right? okay gotcha. seriously,you should get a comedy club going.
> 
> oh and love how  when you are cornered you evade facts and change the subject talking about grammar refusing to admit you are smoking crack.  oh and you're one to talk,you cant even count.
> 
> when you were cornerd with that fact,you played dodgeball and changed the subject to grammar. talk about someone who has no credibility.someone who listens to what our corrupt government instittutions and the CIA controlled media tell them instead of highly qualified experts in their field. sorry cant help the smileys,you wont lay off the crack your smoking and you keep making me laugh so i cant help it funny man.
> 
> 
> what hypocrisy,YOU lost your credibility on this thread a few pages ago with this childish retarded comment below that I would expect out of a 2 or 3 year old such as CENSORED.
> 
> 
> And no, Republican presidents have NOT been traitors.
> 
> 
> 
> STILL waiting for you to get off the crack you being smoking charlie.
Click to expand...

Sure is a long tantrum you're having.  Hope you enjoy the neg I just sent you.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

S.J. said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but with a name like "9/11 inside job", it's hard to take you seriously enough to waste time on.  Learn how to use capital letters, commas, and periods and you'll be taken more seriously.  Oh, and stop flooding the page with useless icons.  It doesn't make your arguments any more credible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cant help it that you wont get off the crack you been smoking,thats your fault,not mine. oh that comment just proves how ignorant you are and have no clue about the laws of physics since to accept the governments version of events that day,you have to ignore the laws of physics scientists have gone by for thousands of years.
> 
> so in your warped acid  world you live in,expert pilots from around the world saying they could never have done all those incredible  air manuevers in the air with an airliner the government says the alleged highjackers did in the air, saying over the years it is an impossible feat to pull off for starters,just ONE fact  I can bring up  that proves the government is full of shit,somehow according to your warped drugged out mind,YOUR logic is those pilots are wrong and the goverment and the LAMESTREAM media are right? okay gotcha. seriously,you should get a comedy club going.
> 
> oh and love how  when you are cornered you evade facts and change the subject talking about grammar refusing to admit you are smoking crack.  oh and you're one to talk,you cant even count.
> 
> when you were cornerd with that fact,you played dodgeball and changed the subject to grammar. talk about someone who has no credibility.someone who listens to what our corrupt government instittutions and the CIA controlled media tell them instead of highly qualified experts in their field. sorry cant help the smileys,you wont lay off the crack your smoking and you keep making me laugh so i cant help it funny man.
> 
> 
> what hypocrisy,YOU lost your credibility on this thread a few pages ago with this childish retarded comment below that I would expect out of a 2 or 3 year old such as CENSORED.
> 
> 
> And no, Republican presidents have NOT been traitors.
> 
> 
> 
> STILL waiting for you to get off the crack you being smoking charlie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure is a long tantrum you're having.  Hope you enjoy the neg I just sent you.
Click to expand...


Kid  you REALLY lost your credibility there. you're so delusional and drugged up on crack,that you cant even distinguish a LAUGHING smiley,from a MAD smiley.
thats the smiley i would have posted if i was having a tantrem as you alledged.

comedy gold.keep up the comedy kid dreaming that I was having a tantrem instead of laughing at your stupidity. waits to be told by the kid I am having another tantrem.

oh and yeah,I'll for sure enjoy the neg you sent me.you're so stupid you dont even get it that you did me a favor by doing that.

Im Honered you sent me one,cause that  just proves you are getting frustrated you cant refute my facts and the truth hurts.when people have to resort to that,thats because they get frustrated they cant counter facts. 

Goodbye kid,I have better things to do with my life than waste it on a child who cant  even think for himself, smokes crack living in a fairy tale land that no republican presidents have been traiters,and when gets frustrayed with facts he cant refute knowing he is cornered,instead of being mature enough to admit he has been proven wrong,is too arrogant to do so and in doing so, he has to change the subject and gets so frustrated he has to neg them  to feel better about himself..

Pm  me in about ten years from now when you finally have grown up kid,maybe by then you will have grown up and got off the crack you been smoking.till then,meet and enjoy my ignore list.

and finally,you might actually consider listening to people such as myself who have done their homework instead of the CIA controlled news and your parents and grandparents,what THEY taught you. 

You're just like a cousin of mine,cant see how corrupt the republicans are and will always  vote republican because thats what your parents did and their parents-your grandparents before them, so sad.

 just like him,you are too afraid to step outside of your comfort zone to unlearn what you have learned.you feel to secure in your fantasy world you have been taught to live in.so sad.

goodbye and have fun growing up.adios.


----------



## regent

Uncensored2008 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> In merrie old England if someone belched before the King he was accused of treason. Knowing this the framers defined treason in the Constitution and the number accused, tried and convicted of treason in America is quite small. We still use the merrie old England approach however, and accuse our political leaders of treason not for belching, but for not acting or talking the way we think they should act or talk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't use treason lightly. I've not accused Obama of treason - he is a criminal who should be impeached, but that isn't the same as a traitor.
> 
> Interstate extortion is a felony - Obama belongs in prison for it - but it is not treason.
Click to expand...


And the crime for which Obama has been convicted?


----------



## JakeStarkey

The worst traitors today are the far right wing nut right.

They should be on trial.


----------



## Uncensored2008

regent said:


> And the crime for which Obama has been convicted?



John Gotti shot a man in the head in front of a bar full of people. The DA and presiding judge were on the Mafia payroll. So based on Obamunist logic, Gotti did nothing wrong, since he would not be convicted...

This is one of many reasons you of the Khmer Rouge are so dangerous.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

^someone farted in here.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Uncensored2008 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the crime for which Obama has been convicted?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Gotti shot a man in the head in front of a bar full of people. The DA and presiding judge were on the Mafia payroll. So based on Obamunist logic, Gotti did nothing wrong, since he would not be convicted...
> 
> This is one of many reasons you of the Khmer Rouge are so dangerous.
Click to expand...


The logic is that of the Uncensured fascists.

It is obvious now since the primaries you folks are fading in the political past.

Good riddance but the smell will remain for awhile.


----------



## Rogue 9

9/11 inside job said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> cant help it that you wont get off the crack you been smoking,thats your fault,not mine. oh that comment just proves how ignorant you are and have no clue about the laws of physics since to accept the governments version of events that day,you have to ignore the laws of physics scientists have gone by for thousands of years.
> 
> so in your warped acid  world you live in,expert pilots from around the world saying they could never have done all those incredible  air manuevers in the air with an airliner the government says the alleged highjackers did in the air, saying over the years it is an impossible feat to pull off for starters,just ONE fact  I can bring up  that proves the government is full of shit,somehow according to your warped drugged out mind,YOUR logic is those pilots are wrong and the goverment and the LAMESTREAM media are right? okay gotcha. seriously,you should get a comedy club going.
> 
> oh and love how  when you are cornered you evade facts and change the subject talking about grammar refusing to admit you are smoking crack.  oh and you're one to talk,you cant even count.
> 
> when you were cornerd with that fact,you played dodgeball and changed the subject to grammar. talk about someone who has no credibility.someone who listens to what our corrupt government instittutions and the CIA controlled media tell them instead of highly qualified experts in their field. sorry cant help the smileys,you wont lay off the crack your smoking and you keep making me laugh so i cant help it funny man.
> 
> 
> what hypocrisy,YOU lost your credibility on this thread a few pages ago with this childish retarded comment below that I would expect out of a 2 or 3 year old such as CENSORED.
> 
> 
> And no, Republican presidents have NOT been traitors.
> 
> 
> 
> STILL waiting for you to get off the crack you being smoking charlie.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure is a long tantrum you're having.  Hope you enjoy the neg I just sent you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kid  you REALLY lost your credibility there. you're so delusional and drugged up on crack,that you cant even distinguish a LAUGHING smiley,from a MAD smiley.
> thats the smiley i would have posted if i was having a tantrem as you alledged.
> 
> comedy gold.keep up the comedy kid dreaming that I was having a tantrem instead of laughing at your stupidity. waits to be told by the kid I am having another tantrem.
> 
> oh and yeah,I'll for sure enjoy the neg you sent me.you're so stupid you dont even get it that you did me a favor by doing that.
> 
> Im Honered you sent me one,cause that  just proves you are getting frustrated you cant refute my facts and the truth hurts.when people have to resort to that,thats because they get frustrated they cant counter facts.
> 
> Goodbye kid,I have better things to do with my life than waste it on a child who cant  even think for himself, smokes crack living in a fairy tale land that no republican presidents have been traiters,and when gets frustrayed with facts he cant refute knowing he is cornered,instead of being mature enough to admit he has been proven wrong,is too arrogant to do so and in doing so, he has to change the subject and gets so frustrated he has to neg them  to feel better about himself..
> 
> Pm  me in about ten years from now when you finally have grown up kid,maybe by then you will have grown up and got off the crack you been smoking.till then,meet and enjoy my ignore list.
> 
> and finally,you might actually consider listening to people such as myself who have done their homework instead of the CIA controlled news and your parents and grandparents,what THEY taught you.
> 
> You're just like a cousin of mine,cant see how corrupt the republicans are and will always  vote republican because thats what your parents did and their parents-your grandparents before them, so sad.
> 
> just like him,you are too afraid to step outside of your comfort zone to unlearn what you have learned.you feel to secure in your fantasy world you have been taught to live in.so sad.
> 
> goodbye and have fun growing up.adios.
Click to expand...

Wow.  That is one of the stupidest walls of text I've read in ages, and I regularly argue with neo-Confederates.  Congratulations, you've hit rock bottom.    Here, [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w&list=PL6F70E9C7EF49734B"]have some required watching.[/ame]


----------



## JakeStarkey

These sets of videos are playing in almost every high school in America at least once a year.

rightfully so


----------



## Peach

Sallow said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson Davis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or Robert E Lee
Click to expand...


Robert E. Lee was torn, he chose his home state, though he was not in favor of the rebellion. Traitors:

1. Arnold
2. Burr
3. D'Aquino
4. Monti
5. Gillars

Plus a few more.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Peach said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson Davis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or Robert E Lee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Robert E. Lee was torn, he chose his home state, though he was not in favor of the rebellion. Traitors:
> 
> 1. Arnold
> 2. Burr
> 3. D'Aquino
> 4. Monti
> 5. Gillars
> 
> Plus a few more.
Click to expand...


Burr?

Interesting. Aaron Burr was co-founder of the Democratic party, along with Andrew Jackson. So, the dems were founded on treason, it is an enduring part of what they are?

Makes sense.

Burr was found not guilty of treason, BTW.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

Burr was not a traitor - he was an interesting figure in American politics ... one of the founding fathers who often was at odds with his own principles. 

He was acquitted of treason.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Rogue 9 said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure is a long tantrum you're having.  Hope you enjoy the neg I just sent you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kid  you REALLY lost your credibility there. you're so delusional and drugged up on crack,that you cant even distinguish a LAUGHING smiley,from a MAD smiley.
> thats the smiley i would have posted if i was having a tantrem as you alledged.
> 
> comedy gold.keep up the comedy kid dreaming that I was having a tantrem instead of laughing at your stupidity. waits to be told by the kid I am having another tantrem.
> 
> oh and yeah,I'll for sure enjoy the neg you sent me.you're so stupid you dont even get it that you did me a favor by doing that.
> 
> Im Honered you sent me one,cause that  just proves you are getting frustrated you cant refute my facts and the truth hurts.when people have to resort to that,thats because they get frustrated they cant counter facts.
> 
> Goodbye kid,I have better things to do with my life than waste it on a child who cant  even think for himself, smokes crack living in a fairy tale land that no republican presidents have been traiters,and when gets frustrayed with facts he cant refute knowing he is cornered,instead of being mature enough to admit he has been proven wrong,is too arrogant to do so and in doing so, he has to change the subject and gets so frustrated he has to neg them  to feel better about himself..
> 
> Pm  me in about ten years from now when you finally have grown up kid,maybe by then you will have grown up and got off the crack you been smoking.till then,meet and enjoy my ignore list.
> 
> and finally,you might actually consider listening to people such as myself who have done their homework instead of the CIA controlled news and your parents and grandparents,what THEY taught you.
> 
> You're just like a cousin of mine,cant see how corrupt the republicans are and will always  vote republican because thats what your parents did and their parents-your grandparents before them, so sad.
> 
> just like him,you are too afraid to step outside of your comfort zone to unlearn what you have learned.you feel to secure in your fantasy world you have been taught to live in.so sad.
> 
> goodbye and have fun growing up.adios.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow.  That is one of the stupidest walls of text I've read in ages, and I regularly argue with neo-Confederates.  Congratulations, you've hit rock bottom.    Here, [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w&list=PL6F70E9C7EF49734B"]have some required watching.[/ame]
Click to expand...


debunked my ass SJ ass kisser.

demoiltion experts along with witnesses,many firefighters experienced in the sounds of explosives have said they could only come down like that due to explosives.buildings dont fall at freefall speed straight down either due to fires,never in the history of mankind has that ever happened.you really need to go back to junior high school and take the science classses you obviously ditched. you dont know anything at all about bld 7 either,the crux of the 9/11 coverup nobody has ever been able to get around. and nice game of dodgeball again,only reading part of the post and addresing part of it instead of the whole thing. miserable fail.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JakeStarkey said:


> These sets of videos are playing in almost every high school in America at least once a year.
> 
> rightfully so



in this facist dictatership country we live in,rightfully so for that kind of country is right.

and its no surprise whatsoever they are playing there since our school system is corrupt disinfo agent. they still teach the debunked lies of the government that oswald was the lone asassin of JFK so of course they are going to brainwash them with these lies of the govenments as well.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

9/11 inside job said:


> ^someone farted in here.



^ Someone is 9 years old


----------



## eagle7_31

Oddball said:


> *Who was the worst traitor in U.S. history?*
> 
> 
> 
> Woodrow Wilson.
Click to expand...



I don't think Wilson was a traitor, but the Fed Reserve Act, Fed Income tax as presently structured has done more harm than good. You can also throw in US entry into WWI. That and slavery is why in large part we are in the mess we are in now.


----------



## Peach

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin has already elaborated.
> 
> Why do you think we were named "The United States Of America?" Was it because George Washington established an empire where once colonies had stood? Trading the central authority of the British Crown for the central authority of Washington?  Or was it that 13 autonomous states, each with an independent government, elected from the people therein, formed a voluntary union for common defense and to arbitrate disputes of trade?
> 
> Because, IF this were a union, than any member can leave at any time. If it is an empire, then the sovereign will bring force of arms and call the attempt of people to govern themselves "treason" and "sedition."
> 
> 
> 
> Its basically a fairly simple concept. And the constitution makes absolutely no provision for secession. Marty is completely correct in all of his points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why doesn't the 10th Amendment apply to secession?
Click to expand...


The words: *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.

The Constitution, once ratified by a state, nullified any authority to later "decline" to be part of the UNITED states. Like any contract, read and understand that you will be bound by the terms prior to agreeing to those terms.


----------



## Peach

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Burr was not a traitor - he was an interesting figure in American politics ... one of the founding fathers who often was at odds with his own principles.
> 
> He was acquitted of treason.



True; Arnold, Kuhn, Coughlin, Vallandigham, for starters.


----------



## Thobbs

I believe that Julius and Ethel, the infamous Rosenburgs, are the two worst traitors in American history.

They traded US atomic secrets off to the USSR during the cold war, helping them to learn the stuff the soviets fight the Americans. Records prove that Julius Rosenburg was indeed a courier and recruiter for the USSR, trying to convince many Americans to join the communist nation.

Morton Sobell admitted to the courts in 2008 that he was a spy, and that Julius did hand over atomic information.


----------



## Bush92

Thobbs said:


> I believe that Julius and Ethel, the infamous Rosenburgs, are the two worst traitors in American history.
> 
> They traded US atomic secrets off to the USSR during the cold war, helping them to learn the stuff the soviets fight the Americans. Records prove that Julius Rosenburg was indeed a courier and recruiter for the USSR, trying to convince many Americans to join the communist nation.
> 
> Morton Sobell admitted to the courts in 2008 that he was a spy, and that Julius did hand over atomic information.


According to the liberal community he was a victim. But, he did help communist so they like him.


----------



## whitehall

thanatos144 said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on you freaking historical deprived union educated alleged Americans. The Country was different when Arnold decided the Revolution might not be a good idea and when the States were more powerful than the foggy bottom based federal government that advocated slavery for two hundred years. It was the United State's Flag that flew off slave ships not the Confederate flag. The world changed after the turn of the 20th century. Can we restrict the argument to relevant issues like real traitors? Lee Harvey Oswald defected to Russia and returned with his KGB wife and murdered the president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was people flying the American flag that ended slavery it was those flying the Confederate flagg killing to keep it. Perspective.
Click to expand...



The people who flew the American Flag and the Union Jack were the ones who enslaved their fellow man for two hundred years. Somehow the education deprived Americans managed to blame the Confederate battle flag that barely existed for four years.


----------



## Bush92

whitehall said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on you freaking historical deprived union educated alleged Americans. The Country was different when Arnold decided the Revolution might not be a good idea and when the States were more powerful than the foggy bottom based federal government that advocated slavery for two hundred years. It was the United State's Flag that flew off slave ships not the Confederate flag. The world changed after the turn of the 20th century. Can we restrict the argument to relevant issues like real traitors? Lee Harvey Oswald defected to Russia and returned with his KGB wife and murdered the president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was people flying the American flag that ended slavery it was those flying the Confederate flagg killing to keep it. Perspective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The people who flew the American Flag and the Union Jack were the ones who enslaved their fellow man for two hundred years. Somehow the education deprived Americans managed to blame the Confederate battle flag that barely existed for four years.
Click to expand...

Shelby Foote on this very point.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

whitehall said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on you freaking historical deprived union educated alleged Americans. The Country was different when Arnold decided the Revolution might not be a good idea and when the States were more powerful than the foggy bottom based federal government that advocated slavery for two hundred years. It was the United State's Flag that flew off slave ships not the Confederate flag. The world changed after the turn of the 20th century. Can we restrict the argument to relevant issues like real traitors? Lee Harvey Oswald defected to Russia and returned with his KGB wife and murdered the president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was people flying the American flag that ended slavery it was those flying the Confederate flagg killing to keep it. Perspective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The people who flew the American Flag and the Union Jack were the ones who enslaved their fellow man for two hundred years. Somehow the education deprived Americans managed to blame the Confederate battle flag that barely existed for four years.
Click to expand...

This is correct. The Confederacy was a slave-nation, but the United States was born a slave nation as well. Not to mention the fact that Old Glory practiced slavery even during the Civil War.


----------



## HenryBHough

Decision on who's worst traitor will have to wait until mid 2017.

Hillary needs the opportunity to show whether she can best Obama.


----------



## namvet

hands down should be on the top 10 most wanted


----------



## LA RAM FAN

HenryBHough said:


> Decision on who's worst traitor will have to wait until mid 2017.
> 
> Hillary needs the opportunity to show whether she can best Obama.


 Indeed.Obama bested Bush now lets see if hellary can best Obama.I wont take a bet against that,not with this corrupt one party system.


----------



## longly

Peach said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson Davis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or Robert E Lee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Robert E. Lee was torn, he chose his home state, though he was not in favor of the rebellion. .
Click to expand...

 

Robert E Lee was born into a wealth family, but his  father lost the family fortune and fled the country. If it had not been for his extended family he, his mother and sisters would have starved. When the time came that they need him there was nothing else he could do but support them.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Obama is a criminal. He is a Chicago thug with zero respect for the law or the Constitution. He belongs in federal prison, along with his Shock Collar Eric Holder for the dozens of crimes he has perpetrated in office.

But is Obama a traitor? Has he given aid and comfort to our enemies during times of war? I could not make that claim.


----------



## regent

So was George Washington a traitor?


----------



## rightwinger

Convicted Cold War spy John Walker dies in prison - CNN.com


----------

