Class, as you all remember, the question is:Cry, cry, cry, Old-goaT. Matched slander and innuendo against your slander and innuendo and you folded, Old-goaT. It's you and ExNYer who wanted to make a slanderous issue out of who won what and what whose forebears did when, you dumb ignorant fuck. It's obvious you can't take the shit you so willingly dish out can you, Old-goaT, you pretentious fucking hypocrite.
"YOU (IBH) accused MY family of having ancestral guilt, so now back that up with specifics! .... So tell me, what evil did my family support? What attrocity did they commit? What "ancestral guilt" do you know is in my blood?"
So who thinks IBH will get a passing grade this time? Oh, don't be afraid to raise your hands! SOMEONE must thinkk little IBH is able to learn. You'll hurt his feelings if no one has confidence in him.
Let's look:
Oh, I'm sorry little IBH! This question had nothing to do with slandering other people, don't you see that? It has nothing to do with crying. It has to do with backing up a statement you made. Remember, you said someone had "ancestral guilt". I'm sure you remember that. And you were asked to substantiate that claim with specific facts. If you can't, that is called LIEING. You should look up that word.
Personally little boy, I don't usually insinuate. I generally come right out and say it kind of bluntly. Look at my statement above: "Speak up with SPECIFICS, of shut the hell up and be labled an assinine, bloated, ignorant, lieing, blowhard forever!"
Do you REALLY think that is insinuating anything? I don't. I think it's quite direct. Show of hands, class, how many of you think I am subtly insinuating anything here?
Sorry little boy, 0 for 3 and counting! HINT: if you cut and paste your same answer again, it probably won't do very well next time either. You may want to consider that since I am trying to help you here. It's so sad to see you flail so much at a very simple question. All you have to do is explain what was behind your own statement. You mean you can't explain your own words? Maybe ExNYer is right about you after all.:mf_laughbounc e:
PS: If you think your drivel is making me cry, then you are mistaking my hysterical laughing for crying. Until you answer my question you aren't worth crying. Sorry to burst your overly inflated sense of self. Originally Posted by Old-T
- I B Hankering
- 11-17-2012, 09:51 PM
- Guest040616
- 11-17-2012, 10:06 PM
How about we grant special secession status to all of the Whiners and Criers? I vote that we give such status to I B Crying, Whirly, StupidOldFart, Iffy, J D, Joe the Bloehard, LLDINO and Marshy. What's the over/under on how long it will take these 8 Deadbeats to elect their own President and then collectively implode?
- I B Hankering
- 11-17-2012, 10:09 PM
More examples of Yankee complicity in the slave trade.
A dramatic increase of illicit traffic and actual importations of slaves took place in the decade 1850-1860. The fitting out of slavers became a prosperous business in the United States, one centered in New York City. Vessels leaving New York were in close alliance with legitimate trade. Downtown merchants of wealth and respectability engaged in buying and selling African slaves throughout the 1850s with little interference from the government. "During eighteen months of the years 1859-1860 eighty-five slavers were reported to have been fitted out in New York harbor, and these alone transported from 30,000 to 60,000 slaves annually," wrote historian W.E.B. Dubois. "The United States deputy marshal of that district declared in 1856 that the business of fitting out slavers was never prosecuted with greater energy than at present."
http://historyengine.richmond.edu/episodes/view/4506
One more tough choice under pressure for President Abraham Lincoln
2/13/2012
By Patrick Teegarden
February 7, 1862 was the originally scheduled execution date for Nathaniel Gordon, a convicted trans-Atlantic slave trader. However, Gordon, the scion of a respectable Presbyterian family from Portland, Maine, had good reason to believe that neither his death sentence nor any other severe punishment would actually be carried out.
After all, in the 43 years since the United States had belatedly outlawed the international slave trade (1809), few American slavers had been caught, even fewer tried, and hardly any convicted. America’s anti-slave trading statute was a loophole-ridden law which was only half-heartedly enforced by a nation which still held the victims of that illegal trade to be perfectly legal property upon U.S. soil.
American enforcement of it’s own anti-slave trade law was so close to non-existent that the first conviction under the Act which included the possibility of a death sentence was not until 1854, nearly 40 years after that version of the law had been enacted. But in the 1854 case, Jefferson Davis’ future defense lawyer got a minimal sentence for the defendant, and President James Buchanan eventually granted him a full pardon anyway.
Furthermore, after the War of 1812, which began with British detention of American Slave ships (most of us learned it as “impressment of American sailors”), the American flag was arguably the safest for slavers to sail under. Since only the British were serious about enforcing the prohibition of the international Slave Trade activity on the high seas, and since post-War of 1812 they refrained from most overt interference with American shipping, American slave ships got as close to a “free pass” as existed.
And then there’s the matter of Abraham Lincoln’s own forgiving nature. A full inventory of examples of Lincoln’s kindness, compassion, and innate goodness would be a daunting and lengthy project. But a couple of brief examples are particularly illustrative of his humanity.
Edward Bates, Lincoln’s Attorney General, famously commented to White House artist Francis Carpenter about the President’s propensity for pardons and commuted sentences to deserters, spies, and their like:
I have sometimes told him...that he was unfit to be intrusted with the pardoning power. Why, if a man comes to him with a touching story, his judgment is almost certain to be affected by it. Should the applicant be a woman, a wife, a mother, or a sister,—in nine cases out of 10, her tears, if nothing else, are sure to prevail.
When Gordon’s prosecutor, E. Delafield Smith (a Lincoln Administration appointee), met to urge the President to uphold the death sentence for Gordon, Lincoln responded: “Mr. Smith, you do not know how hard it is to have a human being die when you know that a stroke of your pen may save him.”
The intensity and breadth of the lobbying campaign to commute Gordon’s sentence was nearly overwhelming, and included public rallies, petitions signed by thousands of citizens, pressure from U.S. Senators and Representatives, and, of course, the heartfelt, tearful pleas of Gordon’s young wife and other family members which the Attorney General so feared.
The pressure brought to bear on the President to pardon Gordon was well articulated by The New York World. That paper asserted that all types of “social, professional and other interested influence has been brought to bear upon Mr. Lincoln, and it is stated that never before has a President been so thoroughly and persistently approached for official interference as in this case. Every possible argument which the ingenuity of counsel, the regard of relatives, or the fear of mercantile accomplices could suggest, has been used.”
But the President withstood the pressure, and stated that he felt he had a “duty to refuse” this particular request for clemency, but instead granted Gordon a two-week stay of execution, until February 22, so that the condemned slave trader would have some time to make “the necessary preparation for the awful change which awaits him.”
In his stay of execution, President Lincoln went on to state that: “In granting this respite, it becomes my painful duty to admonish the prisoner that, relinquishing all expectation of pardon by Human Authority, he refer himself alone to the mercy of the common God and Father of all men.” Needless to say, Lincoln chose the words “God and Father of ALL men” (emphasis added) intentionally as he always did when writing and speaking.
Lincoln’s refusal to intervene in the case of Nathaniel Gordon helped pave the way for a key 1862 diplomatic agreement between the U.S. and Great Britain on mutual enforcement of anti-slave-trade efforts on the seas. It is difficult to assess the degree to which this aided in staving off pressure within England to recognize the Confederacy, but it certainly played a positive role. As the London Daily News stated about the President’s decision not to interfere in the execution of Gordon, it was “an index of the quality of Mr. Lincoln’s government, of its strength of principle, and the consistency of its policy, and it marks the end of a system.”
More significantly in terms of our own national history, however, this proved to be the long overdue deterrent to continued American trans-Atlantic Slave Trade activity, and a significant step in early 1862 by Abraham Lincoln on his increasingly public resolve to ensure broad national and worldwide recognition that this Civil War was indeed very much about the future of slavery in the U.S.
February 12 is Abraham Lincoln’s birthday and I choose to believe he would be proud to be remembered in the context of Black History Month in U.S. history.
Sources for this column include: Abraham Lincoln: A Life (volume two), by Michael Burlingame (2008, Johns Hopkins University Press); President Lincoln: The Duty of a Statesman, by William Lee Miller (2008, Alfred A. Knopf); A World On Fire: Britain’s Crucial Role in the American Civil War by Amanda Foreman (2010, Random House); and Lincoln: Speeches and Writings 1859-1865, edited by Don E. Fehrenbacher, (1989, Literary Classics of the United States).
http://www.coloradostatesman.com/con...braham-lincoln
A dramatic increase of illicit traffic and actual importations of slaves took place in the decade 1850-1860. The fitting out of slavers became a prosperous business in the United States, one centered in New York City. Vessels leaving New York were in close alliance with legitimate trade. Downtown merchants of wealth and respectability engaged in buying and selling African slaves throughout the 1850s with little interference from the government. "During eighteen months of the years 1859-1860 eighty-five slavers were reported to have been fitted out in New York harbor, and these alone transported from 30,000 to 60,000 slaves annually," wrote historian W.E.B. Dubois. "The United States deputy marshal of that district declared in 1856 that the business of fitting out slavers was never prosecuted with greater energy than at present."
http://historyengine.richmond.edu/episodes/view/4506
One more tough choice under pressure for President Abraham Lincoln
2/13/2012
By Patrick Teegarden
February 7, 1862 was the originally scheduled execution date for Nathaniel Gordon, a convicted trans-Atlantic slave trader. However, Gordon, the scion of a respectable Presbyterian family from Portland, Maine, had good reason to believe that neither his death sentence nor any other severe punishment would actually be carried out.
After all, in the 43 years since the United States had belatedly outlawed the international slave trade (1809), few American slavers had been caught, even fewer tried, and hardly any convicted. America’s anti-slave trading statute was a loophole-ridden law which was only half-heartedly enforced by a nation which still held the victims of that illegal trade to be perfectly legal property upon U.S. soil.
American enforcement of it’s own anti-slave trade law was so close to non-existent that the first conviction under the Act which included the possibility of a death sentence was not until 1854, nearly 40 years after that version of the law had been enacted. But in the 1854 case, Jefferson Davis’ future defense lawyer got a minimal sentence for the defendant, and President James Buchanan eventually granted him a full pardon anyway.
Furthermore, after the War of 1812, which began with British detention of American Slave ships (most of us learned it as “impressment of American sailors”), the American flag was arguably the safest for slavers to sail under. Since only the British were serious about enforcing the prohibition of the international Slave Trade activity on the high seas, and since post-War of 1812 they refrained from most overt interference with American shipping, American slave ships got as close to a “free pass” as existed.
And then there’s the matter of Abraham Lincoln’s own forgiving nature. A full inventory of examples of Lincoln’s kindness, compassion, and innate goodness would be a daunting and lengthy project. But a couple of brief examples are particularly illustrative of his humanity.
Edward Bates, Lincoln’s Attorney General, famously commented to White House artist Francis Carpenter about the President’s propensity for pardons and commuted sentences to deserters, spies, and their like:
I have sometimes told him...that he was unfit to be intrusted with the pardoning power. Why, if a man comes to him with a touching story, his judgment is almost certain to be affected by it. Should the applicant be a woman, a wife, a mother, or a sister,—in nine cases out of 10, her tears, if nothing else, are sure to prevail.
When Gordon’s prosecutor, E. Delafield Smith (a Lincoln Administration appointee), met to urge the President to uphold the death sentence for Gordon, Lincoln responded: “Mr. Smith, you do not know how hard it is to have a human being die when you know that a stroke of your pen may save him.”
The intensity and breadth of the lobbying campaign to commute Gordon’s sentence was nearly overwhelming, and included public rallies, petitions signed by thousands of citizens, pressure from U.S. Senators and Representatives, and, of course, the heartfelt, tearful pleas of Gordon’s young wife and other family members which the Attorney General so feared.
The pressure brought to bear on the President to pardon Gordon was well articulated by The New York World. That paper asserted that all types of “social, professional and other interested influence has been brought to bear upon Mr. Lincoln, and it is stated that never before has a President been so thoroughly and persistently approached for official interference as in this case. Every possible argument which the ingenuity of counsel, the regard of relatives, or the fear of mercantile accomplices could suggest, has been used.”
But the President withstood the pressure, and stated that he felt he had a “duty to refuse” this particular request for clemency, but instead granted Gordon a two-week stay of execution, until February 22, so that the condemned slave trader would have some time to make “the necessary preparation for the awful change which awaits him.”
In his stay of execution, President Lincoln went on to state that: “In granting this respite, it becomes my painful duty to admonish the prisoner that, relinquishing all expectation of pardon by Human Authority, he refer himself alone to the mercy of the common God and Father of all men.” Needless to say, Lincoln chose the words “God and Father of ALL men” (emphasis added) intentionally as he always did when writing and speaking.
Lincoln’s refusal to intervene in the case of Nathaniel Gordon helped pave the way for a key 1862 diplomatic agreement between the U.S. and Great Britain on mutual enforcement of anti-slave-trade efforts on the seas. It is difficult to assess the degree to which this aided in staving off pressure within England to recognize the Confederacy, but it certainly played a positive role. As the London Daily News stated about the President’s decision not to interfere in the execution of Gordon, it was “an index of the quality of Mr. Lincoln’s government, of its strength of principle, and the consistency of its policy, and it marks the end of a system.”
More significantly in terms of our own national history, however, this proved to be the long overdue deterrent to continued American trans-Atlantic Slave Trade activity, and a significant step in early 1862 by Abraham Lincoln on his increasingly public resolve to ensure broad national and worldwide recognition that this Civil War was indeed very much about the future of slavery in the U.S.
February 12 is Abraham Lincoln’s birthday and I choose to believe he would be proud to be remembered in the context of Black History Month in U.S. history.
Sources for this column include: Abraham Lincoln: A Life (volume two), by Michael Burlingame (2008, Johns Hopkins University Press); President Lincoln: The Duty of a Statesman, by William Lee Miller (2008, Alfred A. Knopf); A World On Fire: Britain’s Crucial Role in the American Civil War by Amanda Foreman (2010, Random House); and Lincoln: Speeches and Writings 1859-1865, edited by Don E. Fehrenbacher, (1989, Literary Classics of the United States).
http://www.coloradostatesman.com/con...braham-lincoln
- I B Hankering
- 11-17-2012, 10:15 PM
- Old-T
- 11-17-2012, 10:17 PM
Oh dear! You are having even more trouble with this question than I thought:
"YOU (IBH) accused MY family of having ancestral guilt, so now back that up with specifics! .... So tell me, what evil did my family support? What attrocity did they commit? What "ancestral guilt" do you know is in my blood?"
Is that too hard for you? Are you admitting that maybe you have been caught with your pants down and your hands full? It seems to be. Prove me wrong little boy. All you have to do is tell us what "ancestral guilt" you were referring to. Almost any atrocity will at least logically answer the question, and we all know there are a lot of atrocities out there to pick from. Personally I don't think you can.
0 for 4 and counting. I can count REALLY high if I need to.
"YOU (IBH) accused MY family of having ancestral guilt, so now back that up with specifics! .... So tell me, what evil did my family support? What attrocity did they commit? What "ancestral guilt" do you know is in my blood?"
Cry, cry, cry, Old-goaT. Matched slander and innuendo against your slander and innuendo and you folded, Old-goaT. It's you and ExNYer who wanted to make a slanderous issue out of who won what and what whose forebears did when, you dumb ignorant fuck. It's obvious you can't take the shit you so willingly dish out can you, Old-goaT, you pretentious fucking hypocrite. Originally Posted by I B HankeringFolded? Not hardly! I'm still here, still asking the same very simple question. And there's no crying in my question. No slander or innuendo. Just a simple question asking you to back up YOUR earlier statement.
Is that too hard for you? Are you admitting that maybe you have been caught with your pants down and your hands full? It seems to be. Prove me wrong little boy. All you have to do is tell us what "ancestral guilt" you were referring to. Almost any atrocity will at least logically answer the question, and we all know there are a lot of atrocities out there to pick from. Personally I don't think you can.
0 for 4 and counting. I can count REALLY high if I need to.
- I B Hankering
- 11-17-2012, 10:21 PM
Oh dear! You are having even more trouble with this question than I thought:Cry, cry, cry, Old-goaT. Matched slander and innuendo against your slander and innuendo and you folded, Old-goaT. It's you and ExNYer who wanted to make a slanderous issue out of who won what and what whose forebears did when, you dumb ignorant fuck. It's obvious you can't take the shit you so willingly dish out can you, Old-goaT, you pretentious fucking hypocrite.
"YOU (IBH) accused MY family of having ancestral guilt, so now back that up with specifics! .... So tell me, what evil did my family support? What attrocity did they commit? What "ancestral guilt" do you know is in my blood?"
Folded? Not hardly! I'm still here, still asking the same very simple question. And there's no crying in my question. No slander or innuendo. Just a simple question asking you to back up YOUR earlier statement.
Is that too hard for you? Are you admitting that maybe you have been caught with your pants down and your hands full? It seems to be. Prove me wrong little boy. All you have to do is tell us what "ancestral guilt" you were referring to. Almost any atrocity will at least logically answer the question, and we all know there are a lot of atrocities out there to pick from. Personally I don't think you can.
0 for 4 and counting. I can count REALLY high if I need to.
Originally Posted by Old-T
- Old-T
- 11-17-2012, 10:51 PM
Cry, cry, cry, Old-goaT. Matched slander and innuendo against your slander and innuendo and you folded, Old-goaT. It's you and ExNYer who wanted to make a slanderous issue out of who won what and what whose forebears did when, you dumb ignorant fuck. It's obvious you can't take the shit you so willingly dish out can you, Old-goaT, you pretentious fucking hypocrite. Originally Posted by I B HankeringOh my! You are a broken record of stupidity. Five tries, five complete whiffs.
You answered the question only in your sick, deluded mind. Notice how NO ONE has come forward to point out that I am being unfair?
A simple question for a (very) simple IBH. But more than you can handle. Obviously.
You don't even pretend to answer the question any more.
I guess you quit. Not that I'm surprised, it is what we expect of you. But that does mean you agree to the default judgement against you:
IBH concedes that he is an assinine, bloated, ignorant, lieing, blowhard forever!
Congratulations, you earned it!
- Guest040616
- 11-17-2012, 10:56 PM
- Guest032516
- 11-17-2012, 11:09 PM
No need to cite a damn thing! Attorney General Bate's credentials were solid enough that Lincoln picked him to be his Attorney General. Attorney General Bates' constitutional expertise was equal to or surpassed that of any other Supreme Court justice appointed during that era (*compare with the list below -- one of whom wasn't even a lawyer, jackass). So your argument against Bates' “expertise” remains as bogus now as when it first dribbled out of your ignorant mouth. AG Bates discerned and told Lincoln the action was unconstitutional before it was taken. Originally Posted by I B Hankering
No, shit for brains. Bates was a political appointment. The fact that Lincoln picked him doesn't make him a constitutional scholar any more than Obama picking Eric Holder as AG makes Holder into Oliver Wendell Holmes. Did you ever consider that Lincoln appointed his political opponent for President in order to keep Missouri in the Union?
And apparently Bates wasn't equal or surpassing any other Supreme Court justice. He couldn't even beat out Salmon Chase.
And why is there no need for a cite about Bates' constitutional expertise? You stick in a cite for everything else. Maybe you can't find one?
... Bates emigrated to the Territory of Missouri in 1814 and soon entered the practice of law. In 1818 he was prosecuting attorney for the St. Louis circuit and in 1820 was elected delegate to the State constitutional convention. Towards the close of the same year he was appointed State's attorney of the State of Missouri and held the office for two years. In 1822 he was elected to the State legislature, and in 1824 became State's attorney for the Missouri District. In 1826 he was elected Representative in Congress and served one term. Bates was in the state senate of Missouri in 1830 and 1834. In 1850 President Fillmore offered him the post of Secretary of War, which he declined. In 1853 he became judge of the St. Louis land court, presided over the Whig Convention in Baltimore in 1856, became prominent as an anti-slavery man, and in 1859 was considered for the Presidency. On March 5, 1861, Bates was appointed Attorney General of the United States by President Lincoln. He resigned in 1864, and returned to St. Louis, Missouri, where he died on March 25, 1869. Originally Posted by I B Hankering
Thank you for proving my point that Bates had a rather mundane political career and not much legal career. Did you even read this cite?
Did you really mean to use BOLD face on the sentence about Bates being prosecuting attorney in St. Louis in 1818. We only got the Louisiana purchase in 1803. In 1818, St. Louis was still frontier. How many attorneys were out there in 1818? Was Bates the best of three? And the other two were drunks? Between 1818 and 1826 he seemed to have spent half his time in state politics instead of the law. Then he went to Congress for a term and then came back to the Missouri Senate for a few years.
The only experience he had as a judge was the Missouri Land Court starting in 1853:
http://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/mdh_splash/default.asp?coll=stlmeclien
Key quote:
-----------------------------
"In 1853 the Missouri General Assembly created the St. Louis Land Court and assigned it control of the Mechanic’s Liens, in response to the large number of probate cases, land disputes, petitions for partition, and liens that clogged the St. Louis court system."
--------------------------------
So, he was a judge in a special real estate court, not even the main circuit court, handling mechanics liens on properties. And this is your constitutional expert?
Bates got famous as an abolitionist and a Republican presidential candidate, not as a legal authority. Otherwise, Lincoln never would have heard of him, let alone appointed him AG.
So you fucked up when you cited Bates. He was Lincoln's AG and he sided with you. That's all that mattered. So, you touted him as some kind of authority without looking him up.
Rather than admit he wasn't a constitutional expert, you double down on stupid and try to turn him into the second coming of John Marshal.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
BTW, check the map, you pretentious jackass. Missouri, Illinois and Washington D.C. aligned with the North during the Civil War. The fact that you reject him because he was from Missouri says much more about you than him, you pretentious jackass. Originally Posted by I B Hankering
No, shit for brains. I never rejected him because of what side of the war I thought Missouri was on. Stop creating strawmen. Stop trying to put words into my mouth. That's another sure sign you know you're wrong about Bates.
I rejected Bates because he was a political appointment, not the constitutional expert you were making him out to be.
- Old-T
- 11-17-2012, 11:13 PM
- Guest032516
- 11-17-2012, 11:16 PM
More examples of Yankee complicity in the slave trade. Originally Posted by I B HankeringWhat about all the "Yankees" that died fighting to end slavery? Is that also evidence of complicity in the slave trade?
How many Confederates died to end slavery? Oops, never mind.
And the fact that you derisively refer to northerners as "Yankees" is yet more evidence that you are a Confederate sympathizer through and through - notwithstanding anything your Kentucky ancestors might have done.
You apparently favor your "Mississippi Burning" ancestors.
- Guest032516
- 11-17-2012, 11:22 PM
It's you and ExNYer who wanted to make a slanderous issue out of who won what and what whose forebears did when, you dumb ignorant fuck. It's obvious you can't take the shit you so willingly dish out can you, Old-goaT, you pretentious fucking hypocrite. Originally Posted by I B HankeringIt isn't slander if it's true. Your redneck ancestors (other than the Kentucky ones) were unrepentant Confederates and you were raised in the bile of "The War Of Northern Aggression". You reek of it.
But I see you are back to using "pretentious" again. You missed a couple of posts. I was getting worried about you for a moment there.
- Yssup Rider
- 11-18-2012, 12:55 AM
whine, insult, repeat.
we all know it.
What a douche!
we all know it.
What a douche!
- I B Hankering
- 11-18-2012, 08:12 AM
- I B Hankering
- 11-18-2012, 08:15 AM
Oh my! You are a broken record of stupidity. Five tries, five complete whiffs.You're a miserable sack of shit, Old-goaT. You've been exposed as the hypocrite you are. Matched slander and innuendo against your slander and innuendo and you folded, Old-goaT. It's you and ExNYer who wanted to make a slanderous issue out of who won what and what whose forebears did when, you dumb ignorant fuck. Cry, cry, cry, Old-goaT. It's obvious you can't take the shit you so willingly dish out can you, Old-goaT, you pretentious fucking hypocrite.
You answered the question only in your sick, deluded mind. Notice how NO ONE has come forward to point out that I am being unfair?
A simple question for a (very) simple IBH. But more than you can handle. Obviously.
You don't even pretend to answer the question any more.
I guess you quit. Not that I'm surprised, it is what we expect of you. But that does mean you agree to the default judgement against you:
IBH concedes that he is an assinine, bloated, ignorant, lieing, blowhard forever!
Congratulations, you earned it!