THE ULTIMATE OBAMA LIE.............THE LIE THAT PRECEDED ALL THE LIES

Obviously you take exception to my comment about your toileting skills, Corpy.

Are you claiming you know how to lift the lid before you sit down to pee, IBIdiot?

Yes or no?

Maybe you can hijack this thread deeper and in an ever more "YOU" direction.

Yes or no?

Nope. Sorry Massa IB, you be miztaken. Massa IB don't ansa dem 3 questions. Massa IB babble on like Massa IB do every day. He babble and babble and belch a few times too.

He like to think dem Johnny Rebs that done shoot up Ft Sumter was just a parting and lettin off some steam. Dem white boys like Massa IB they just bein Boys y'all know.

Massa IB, him don't like Massa Lincoln, not at all. Massa IB he say Lincoln the devil himself for tryin' to free us slaves. Massa, he take good care of us, only whip us when we deserves it and don't go lynchin' us septs we deserves it neither.

And Massa, he sure like his obedient slave women, dat be da truth!

Massa you be miztaken. ... Massa don't ansa dem 3 questions ... Massa ... Massa do ... He babble and babble and belch a few times too.

He think dem ... that done shoot up ... was just a parting and lettin off . Dem boys...Massa ... they just bein Boys y'all know.

Massa him don't like Massa Lincoln ... Massa IB he say Lincoln the devil himself for tryin' to free us slaves. Massa, he take good care of us, only whip us when we deserves it and don't go lynchin' us septs we deserves it neither.

Massa ... he sure like ... dat be da truth! Originally Posted by Old-T

A quick review of your post will show that you're the one doing all of the "babbling" here, Old-Twerp. Plus, Old-Twerp, you continue to dishonor Mr. Lincoln and disrespect his memory by not taking him at his word. By rejecting Mr. Lincoln's own claims, Old-Twerp, you are effectively calling Mr. Lincoln a conniving liar.

Answer the question! IBIdiot.

Tick tock.

Of course I take him at his word.

He sought to preserve the Union after the Dixie traitors tried to break away over the slavery issue.

Pretty straight forward.

PS: You can't edit any better than you think express your own thoughts.

Answer the question! IBIdiot.

Tick tock. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

He really can't. He is incapable of understanding it.

Of course I take him at his word.

He sought to preserve the Union after the Dixie traitors tried to break away over the slavery issue.

Pretty straight forward.

PS: You can't edit any better than you think express your own thoughts. Originally Posted by Old-T

Two things you continue to lie and "babble on" about and that you've never proved with factual documentation, Old-Twerp.

First, Old-Twerp, you haven't produced any documentation showing where a senior Confederate official or officer was ever tried and convicted for treason, and second, Old-Twerp, you haven't produced any 1861 document or transcript showing where either Mr. Lincoln or Congress made "slavery" -- and not "Union" -- a war aim. To achieve his war aim of "maintaining Union", Mr. Lincoln promulgated the war by sending invading armies and troops into the South, Old-Twerp; not vice versa.

[LIST=1]
He really can't. He is incapable of understanding it.
Originally Posted by Old-T

You're the one who is obviously incapable of "understanding" what Mr. Lincoln said, Old-Twerp.

Answer the question! IBIdiot.

Tick tock. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Specify which question you stupidly "imagine" went unanswered, you lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM.

You really ARE a confederate sympathizing slave holder wannabe. Oh how you must be frustrated you weren't born in 1780 or so.

You really ARE a confederate sympathizing slave holder wannabe. Oh how you must be frustrated you weren't born in 1780 or so. Originally Posted by Old-T

Not at all, Old-Twerp. You're just a stupid hypocrite, Old-Twerp, who hates having your nose repeatedly rubbed in facts.

Obviously you take exception to my comment about your toileting skills, Corpy.

Are you claiming you know how to lift the lid before you sit down to pee, IBIdiot?

Yes or no?

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

THAT QUESTION, shit for brains!

Originally Posted by Old-T

Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

THAT QUESTION, shit for brains! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You obviously missed your meds and think you're in the forum for deviant behavior, you lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM.

A week later, still can't read, can you?

The Dixie traitors started the Civil War, not Lincoln, and they started it over slavery as you yourself pointed out.

All the Lincoln comments you can find don't outweigh firing on Ft. Sumter.

Personally, I don't think the war was worth it, killing 800,000 young white men, unless it was over slavery. What point now or then is preserving a mere government? They can be reformulated with the consent of the governed. Deaths and slavery are forever.

A week later, still can't read, can you?

The Dixie traitors started the Civil War, not Lincoln, and they started it over slavery as you yourself pointed out.

All the Lincoln comments you can find don't outweigh firing on Ft. Sumter. Originally Posted by Old-T

No one died during the artillery exchange between Federal forces and the South Carolina State Militia at Ft. Sumter, Old-Twerp. Further, a legal state of "war" did not exist until Mr. Lincoln -- using his power as commander in chief -- made his call for troops to invade the South for the purpose of preserving the Union, Old-Twerp.

There are scores of examples in history that show that shots fired by opposing forces do not equate to "war", Old-Twerp. For a modern example, Old-Twerp, one need only consult with your hero, Odumbo, who claims that the U.S. wasn't at "war" in Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, etc., when he bombed respectively Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, etc., and isn't currently at war in Iraq where he is bombing the hell out of ISIS.

BTW, Old-Twerp, the Republic of South Carolina had a delegation in Washington negotiating for the forts in Charleston harbor; hence, it was an issue of "sovereignty", Old-Twerp. The Republic of South Carolina didn't want a foreign military presence within its sovereign geographic boundaries, Old-Twerp: certainly not one that had cannons that could control and devastate the commerce and trade in Charleston harbor.

Ft Sumter was not initially defended by Federal troops, Old-Twerp, and the Republic of South Carolina offered to pay for Ft Sumter and the other forts in the harbor, Old-Twerp. Before South Carolina seceded, Old-Twerp, South Carolina agreed not to occupy the fort until negotiations were completed. In return for the Republic of South Carolina's restraint from taking action, President Buchanan graciously agreed to a veritable truce wherein he said he would not attempt to change the status of forces in Charleston.

That "gentlemen's agreement" -- a veritable truce -- was first violated when Anderson occupied, essentially "reinforced", Ft Sumter, and that truce was violated again when Buchanan sought to send a relief expedition to Ft Sumter in January, 1861. BTW, Old-Twerp, the first shots were actually fired on 9 January 1861, and yet -- mysteriously -- there was no "war", Old-Twerp.

It was not until Mr. Lincoln sent a second relief expedition to Ft Sumter, in violation -- the third -- of the "truce", that South Carolinian cannons fired on Ft Sumter, Old-Twerp. A condition of "war" did not actually exist until Mr. Lincoln -- using his power as commander in chief -- made his call for troops to invade the South for the purpose of preserving the Union, Old-Twerp. Without Mr. Lincoln's call for troops, the artillery exchange on 12 and 13 April would be but a footnote in the history books like the exchange on January 9.