Subject: Tall Skinny Lawyers
Posted by richrobinson 9 years, 8 months ago to The Gulch: General
This may be old but it's the first time I saw it.
Subject: Tall Skinny Lawyers
You might be quite surprised ...Most of us know of the comparable relationship between Lincoln and Kennedy, but have you ever considered the comparisons between President Obama and President Lincoln?
Parallels of Abraham Lincoln and Barack Hussein Obama.
1. Lincoln placed his hand on the Bible for his inauguration. Obama used the very same bible Lincoln used for his inauguration.
2. Lincoln came from Illinois. Obama comes from Illinois.
3. Lincoln served in the Illinois Legislature. Obama served in the Illinois Legislature.
4. Lincoln had very little experience before becoming President. Obama had very little experience before becoming President.
5. Lincoln rode the train from Philadelphia to Washington for his inauguration. Obama rode the train from Philadelphia to Washington for his inauguration.
6. Lincoln was highly respected by some, but intensely disliked by others. Obama is highly respected by some, but intensely disliked by others.
7. Abraham Lincoln was a tall, skinny lawyer. Barack Obama is a tall, skinny lawyer.
8. Lincoln held to basic Conservative and Christian views. Obama is a tall, skinny lawyer.
9. Lincoln volunteered in the Illinois militia, once as a captain, twice as a private. Obama is a tall, skinny lawyer.
10. Lincoln firmly believed in able persons carrying their own weight. Obama is a tall, skinny lawyer.
11. Lincoln was undeniably, and without any doubt, born in the United States. Obama is a tall, skinny lawyer.
12. Lincoln was honest - so honest that he was called 'Honest Abe'. Obama is a tall, skinny lawyer.
13. Lincoln preserved the United States as a strong nation, respected by the world. Obama is a tall, skinny lawyer.
14. Lincoln showed his obvious respect for the flag, and the military. Obama is a tall, skinny lawyer.
15. Lincoln followed the U.S Constitution faithfully. Obama is a tall, skinny lawyer.
Amazing isn't it!!
I have been struggling with this guy (Islam convert) that got arrested at the gun store for buying a couple AR's. I'm sure I do not know the entire story but wonder how this person could be arrested until he actually committed a crime. I don't want people killed by this guy but at the same time it is scary that we have allowed our government to find out about them the way they are. I keep coming back to a Ben Franklin quote, ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
(Been saying that since '93.)
You are right about Lincoln. I had always been a fan but he probably is remembered more fondly because of the way he died and the disastrous Presidency of Andrew Johnson. A great point about war. When the War on Terror was announced I wondered how many freedoms would be lost and much money would be funneled to the politically well connected...
The media and politicians nick named it ObamaCare since he was pushing congress for it.
It was created/written by staff from the white house and congress along with outside consultants.
It was not written by Obama OR Congress
Just a tall skinny stammerer
:)
Everyone knows what that saying generally refers to.
Lincoln came from Illinois. Obama comes from Kenya.
Fixed it for you.
Apologies if it appears that I am too vociferous in my comments. I hate what happened to the republic as a result of Lincoln's actions, and the fact (imo) that Lincoln has escaped responsibility for them.
Lincoln was first and always a politician who wanted power. He served those industries that supported his election, and paid them back with high tariffs and his war against economic freedom of the states that imported manufactured goods from Europe.
Yes, Lincoln and O have a lot more in common than the OP stated. Both big government, anti-liberty traitors who ignored their constitutional responsibilities for personal power.
The big difference: O lives.
List or Roll of Honor?
Which brings us to one of the most insightful passages I've ever read concerning the true nature of bureaucrats and their regulations. The author is Ayn Rand. These quotes are from page 411 of my edition of Atlas Shrugged. Basically, Value Creator Hank Rearden has been accused of breaking some regulations the bureaucrats have made about Rearden's steel business having to do with how much or little steel he may produce, when, and to whom he may sell or not sell.
Says the bureaucrat Floyd Ferris: "You honest men are such a problem and such a headache. But we knew you'd slip sooner or later . . . [and break one of our regulations] . . . this is just what we wanted."
Rearden: "You seem to be pleased about it."
Bureaucrat Ferris: "Don't I have good reason to be?"
Rearden: "But, after all, I did break one of your laws."
Bureaucrat Ferris: "Well, what do you think they're there for?"
Continues bureaucrat Ferris: "Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against . . . We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted [Frederick Mann: Obfuscation of meaning is a key element of the con games bureaucrats and politicians play.] - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." [emphasis added]
Ayn Rand here writes one of the most brilliant expositions I've ever seen about the core of the bureaucratic mentality.
Only if you feel GUILTY about your Value Creation can bureaucrats truly control you. When you admit and confess to yourself and to others that your Value Creation is morally wrong, you are psychologically defeated. This is precisely what they want. Only by making you yourself feel like a criminal about your Value Creation can they defeat you.
The above was taken from AS page 411 and from
http://www.mind-trek.com/articles/t12d.h...
Read DiLorenzo's book, then we can talk further.
I disagree very much with #15. The suspension of habeas corpus is something Congress, not the President, gets to do in emergencies, and of course the income tax isn't even listed as an emergency power. That set a precedent that a President can do pretty much whatever he wants if HE says there's an emergency. Obama has wasted no time taking advantage, but neither did most presidents in the 20th century. Obama did go farther than they, though.
And suspending habeas corpus (to lock people up indefinitely without charges) should only be done when the person is an actual danger to the country. Lincoln did it to several hundred Maryland and Delaware legislators lest they enact secession bills. Locking people up to prevent them from speaking to the public is a very evil precedent, and one that Bush II and Obama got away with doing largely because Lincoln did it and got away with it.
Jan
Lincoln knew what hard honest work was, Obama is a tall skinny lawyer.
to unite, BHO is fighting to divide. -- j
This post of yours (this is an extract) earlier in the thread
Posted by Robbie53024 23 hours, 12 minutes ago
Google is evil - use Bing instead.
There are many who want to knock Lincoln. They are either southerners who can't get over that they lost, or they are those who can't come to grips with the fact that in light of a war, actions need to be taken to win that otherwise wouldn't be permitted.
You brought up Lincoln-Civil War-and a broad swipe at southerners.
So that diverted us down this path
For those who continually claim that Lincoln did not oppose slavery, I point to his letter to Joshua Speed in 1855, and the Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858 (in which Lincoln was seeking election to the US Senate, not the presidency). Both cases were well before Lincoln had any inclinations towards the presidency. On top of that, his speech at the Cooper Union in NYC prior to getting the Republican nomination to run for president also attests to his thoughts about slavery and the impending political crisis with the South.
"But enough! Let all who believe that "our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live, understood this question just as well, and even better, than we do now," speak as they spoke, and act as they acted upon it. This is all Republicans ask - all Republicans desire - in relation to slavery. As those fathers marked it, so let it be again marked, as an evil not to be extended, but to be tolerated and protected only because of and so far as its actual presence among us makes that toleration and protection a necessity. Let all the guarantees those fathers gave it, be, not grudgingly, but fully and fairly, maintained. For this Republicans contend, and with this, so far as I know or believe, they will be content.
And now, if they would listen - as I suppose they will not - I would address a few words to the Southern people.
I would say to them: - You consider yourselves a reasonable and a just people; and I consider that in the general qualities of reason and justice you are not inferior to any other people. Still, when you speak of us Republicans, you do so only to denounce us a reptiles, or, at the best, as no better than outlaws. You will grant a hearing to pirates or murderers, but nothing like it to "Black Republicans." In all your contentions with one another, each of you deems an unconditional condemnation of "Black Republicanism" as the first thing to be attended to. Indeed, such condemnation of us seems to be an indispensable prerequisite - license, so to speak - among you to be admitted or permitted to speak at all. Now, can you, or not, be prevailed upon to pause and to consider whether this is quite just to us, or even to yourselves? Bring forward your charges and specifications, and then be patient long enough to hear us deny or justify.
You say we are sectional. We deny it. That makes an issue; and the burden of proof is upon you. You produce your proof; and what is it? Why, that our party has no existence in your section - gets no votes in your section. The fact is substantially true; but does it prove the issue? If it does, then in case we should, without change of principle, begin to get votes in your section, we should thereby cease to be sectional. You cannot escape this conclusion; and yet, are you willing to abide by it? If you are, you will probably soon find that we have ceased to be sectional, for we shall get votes in your section this very year. You will then begin to discover, as the truth plainly is, that your proof does not touch the issue. The fact that we get no votes in your section, is a fact of your making, and not of ours. And if there be fault in that fact, that fault is primarily yours, and remains until you show that we repel you by some wrong principle or practice. If we do repel you by any wrong principle or practice, the fault is ours; but this brings you to where you ought to have started - to a discussion of the right or wrong of our principle. If our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section for the benefit of ours, or for any other object, then our principle, and we with it, are sectional, and are justly opposed and denounced as such. Meet us, then, on the question of whether our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section; and so meet it as if it were possible that something may be said on our side. Do you accept the challenge? No! Then you really believe that the principle which "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live" thought so clearly right as to adopt it, and indorse it again and again, upon their official oaths, is in fact so clearly wrong as to demand your condemnation without a moment's consideration.
Some of you delight to flaunt in our faces the warning against sectional parties given by Washington in his Farewell Address. Less than eight years before Washington gave that warning, he had, as President of the United States, approved and signed an act of Congress, enforcing the prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory, which act embodied the policy of the Government upon that subject up to and at the very moment he penned that warning; and about one year after he penned it, he wrote LaFayette that he considered that prohibition a wise measure, expressing in the same connection his hope that we should at some time have a confederacy of free States.
Bearing this in mind, and seeing that sectionalism has since arisen upon this same subject, is that warning a weapon in your hands against us, or in our hands against you? Could Washington himself speak, would he cast the blame of that sectionalism upon us, who sustain his policy, or upon you who repudiate it? We respect that warning of Washington, and we commend it to you, together with his example pointing to the right application of it."
"Republican doctrines and declarations are accompanied with a continual protest against any interference whatever with your slaves, or with you about your slaves. Surely, this does not encourage them to revolt. True, we do, in common with "our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live," declare our belief that slavery is wrong..."
"In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, "It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and their places be, pari passu, filled up by free white laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up."
Mr. Jefferson did not mean to say, nor do I, that the power of emancipation is in the Federal Government. He spoke of Virginia; and, as to the power of emancipation, I speak of the slaveholding States only. The Federal Government, however, as we insist, has the power of restraining the extension of the institution - the power to insure that a slave insurrection shall never occur on any American soil which is now free from slavery."
"But you will break up the Union rather than submit to a denial of your Constitutional rights.
That has a somewhat reckless sound; but it would be palliated, if not fully justified, were we proposing, by the mere force of numbers, to deprive you of some right, plainly written down in the Constitution. But we are proposing no such thing.
When you make these declarations, you have a specific and well-understood allusion to an assumed Constitutional right of yours, to take slaves into the federal territories, and to hold them there as property. But no such right is specifically written in the Constitution. That instrument is literally silent about any such right. We, on the contrary, deny that such a right has any existence in the Constitution, even by implication.
Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events.
This, plainly stated, is your language. Perhaps you will say the Supreme Court has decided the disputed Constitutional question in your favor. Not quite so. But waiving the lawyer's distinction between dictum and decision, the Court have decided the question for you in a sort of way. The Court have substantially said, it is your Constitutional right to take slaves into the federal territories, and to hold them there as property. When I say the decision was made in a sort of way, I mean it was made in a divided Court, by a bare majority of the Judges, and they not quite agreeing with one another in the reasons for making it; that it is so made as that its avowed supporters disagree with one another about its meaning, and that it was mainly based upon a mistaken statement of fact - the statement in the opinion that "the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution."
An inspection of the Constitution will show that the right of property in a slave is not "distinctly and expressly affirmed" in it."
"A few words now to Republicans. It is exceedingly desirable that all parts of this great Confederacy shall be at peace, and in harmony, one with another. Let us Republicans do our part to have it so. Even though much provoked, let us do nothing through passion and ill temper. Even though the southern people will not so much as listen to us, let us calmly consider their demands, and yield to them if, in our deliberate view of our duty, we possibly can. Judging by all they say and do, and by the subject and nature of their controversy with us, let us determine, if we can, what will satisfy them.
Will they be satisfied if the Territories be unconditionally surrendered to them? We know they will not. In all their present complaints against us, the Territories are scarcely mentioned. Invasions and insurrections are the rage now. Will it satisfy them, if, in the future, we have nothing to do with invasions and insurrections? We know it will not. We so know, because we know we never had anything to do with invasions and insurrections; and yet this total abstaining does not exempt us from the charge and the denunciation.
The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this: We must not only let them alone, but we must somehow, convince them that we do let them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task. We have been so trying to convince them from the very beginning of our organization, but with no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have constantly protested our purpose to let them alone; but this has had no tendency to convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them, is the fact that they have never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them.
These natural, and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly - done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated - we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas' new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us.
I am quite aware they do not state their case precisely in this way. Most of them would probably say to us, "Let us alone, do nothing to us, and say what you please about slavery." But we do let them alone - have never disturbed them - so that, after all, it is what we say, which dissatisfies them. They will continue to accuse us of doing, until we cease saying.
I am also aware they have not, as yet, in terms, demanded the overthrow of our Free-State Constitutions. Yet those Constitutions declare the wrong of slavery, with more solemn emphasis, than do all other sayings against it; and when all these other sayings shall have been silenced, the overthrow of these Constitutions will be demanded, and nothing be left to resist the demand. It is nothing to the contrary, that they do not demand the whole of this just now. Demanding what they do, and for the reason they do, they can voluntarily stop nowhere short of this consummation. Holding, as they do, that slavery is morally right, and socially elevating, they cannot cease to demand a full national recognition of it, as a legal right, and a social blessing."
Again, this was from before Lincoln was nominated as the Republican candidate for president.
Slavery was legal.
Lincoln refused to meet with the southern representatives to prevent war. That was legal, too.
Dictators do things every day that are legal, and are reprehensible.
Lincoln arrested many who spoke out against him. That was not legal, but Saint Lincoln gets a grand memorial in the Dark Center.
Sometimes legal isn't enough, and men of conscience do not accept it.
I do not accept Obama's legal orders regarding health care whether passed by con-gress or not.
But this is way off topic ;^)
Disregard the law at your own peril. You may be morally right, but will you be around to enjoy it?
"praemonitus, praemunitus" (To be forewarned is to to be forearmed)
All else is merely details.
Lincoln had no concern for negroes except as they competed against his constituents. His Emancipation Proclamation only "freed" the ones in territories he had no control or authority over. Consumate politician and power monger.
I sure have a lot to learn about Lincoln Google, here I come.
There are many who want to knock Lincoln. They are either southerners who can't get over that they lost, or they are those who can't come to grips with the fact that in light of a war, actions need to be taken to win that otherwise wouldn't be permitted. The real question is are those actions temporary or permanent. In the case of Lincoln, they were either temporary or were subsequently ratified by the congress.
As for the EP, that was a cleverly crafted proposition. Since Lincoln couldn't enact laws (or amend the Constitution) by himself, he couldn't change the law in those states that remained in the Union, but he could take a military measure (which is what the EP was) to deal with the populace in warring territory. It actually was quite a clever solution - the slaves didn't need to be emancipated in the North, because there weren't any (or very many), and by using a military proclamation, he sidestepped the legal aspect.
Most of Lincoln's rave reviews come from big government looters, but the most objective look at Lincoln comes from Thomas DiLorenzo, not a southerner, who rips the facade off the sleezy politician. If you really want to know the facts about Lincoln and his Tariff War, read "The Real Lincoln."
It isn't people who can't come to grips with acts in war that criticize Lincoln. It's people with conscience that were taught to think that America stands for something better, and that hiding the truth is reprehensible. Lincoln was reprehensible and the history written about him is a fraud.
One cannot say that it was authorized for the South to secede and that they should retain rights in the Congress. You just can't have it both ways. And if they hadn't seceded, then their actions were civil insurrection properly under the purview of the federal government.
The cause of slavery was clearly brought out in the Lincoln/Douglas debates. While Lincoln was not a vociferous opponent to such in the debates, one must recognize that in an environment in which the southern states were part of the electorate, like any politician, Lincoln could not take a strong position that would alienate a good portion of the voters.
Regarding "One cannot say that it was authorized for the South to secede and that they should retain rights in the Congress", seceding states should only have lost rights in the Congress AFTER secession, but likewise, after secession, what right did the federal government have to continue taxing them? South Carolina viewed their situation before secession as "taxation by the two wolves and one sheep deciding what is for dinner rule". After secession, they viewed themselves as independent. Go to Charleston, SC sometime, and listen to their side of the story. It is much different than what is taught in the textbooks.
In the end, a great evil was eliminated. Whether that was the underlying intent or not seems immaterial. Had the war not been fought, would the end result been much different? Certainly slavery would have continued for some period of time longer, but do you think it would still exist today? Doubtful. Would a South, as a separate nation be much different? I think it would be much worse off.
I find the motivations much less important than the results.
Americans might have had a very different attitude toward central government and individual liberty might have survived much longer than it has.
Results would have been quite different, and possibly much better.
You are right that those other things likely would have been the case. Does that good override the evil of those left in slavery?
It wasn't about slavery, it was about looting from one group of people in order to gain power for another group who could not compete with manufacturers in Europe, and increase of power for Lincoln and central government. Ultimately slavery was increased in that the sovereign people of the states were enslaved by government and the republic was destroyed. That is Lincoln, the politician's, legacy.
So, according to Fleming (and DiL I would imagine), the entire South rose up in order to protect an economic system that was inferior, and dominated by a small minority just for giggles it would seem. They would have thrown off the culture of slavery immediately and willingly had the North merely negotiated with them? It is not that simple.
And read DiLorenzo's book The Real Lincoln, not just others commentary on DiLorenzo. Its akin to reading liberal reviews of Atlas Shrugged.
If you check the facts you will find that Lincoln refused even to meet with members of congress from the south who wanted to discuss a peaceful resolution just days before the fighting began. By his actions (not historical propaganda) it appears that Lincoln wanted to punish the south for defying his 2nd tariff of abomination. Historians have perverted the history for 150 years and they continue to offer their perverted propaganda today.
See comments above and read DiLorenzo's books. They are very rational and thorough. There is no point in discussion if we don't have a common body of knowledge to analyze.
How does this differ from "the ends justify the means" ?
What people usually mean is that the end (most usually a good end) does not justify every possible means of getting there. But that is completely different than saying the ends do not justify the means. They must always. If the ends do not justify the means then nothing else can. :)
http://www.civilwar.org/education/civil-...
Whitney invented the cotton gin in 1794, yet 70 yrs later, slaves were still being used to pick cotton. The constraint of separating the seeds from the fibers dictated machinery, but the labor of picking the cotton was not constrained, nor was automation cost effective compared to slave costs. The south was not going to impose additional costs upon itself to replace slaves with machines on its own.
Slavery wasn't the issue; it was only used to bless Lincoln's sin by the powers that wanted war for economic reasons. The war was about money and power for Lincoln and his backers, but that would have meant history would brand Lincoln and his GOP as the war criminals that they were. No, they had to have a moral imperative and the American public swallowed the con because it was pounded into the heads of all the children at government schools.
If you don't care about discussing this, go ahead and judge only on the basis of the government's case, while ignoring the evidence presented by the counsel for the defense. The loser of the war (outnumbered 3 to 1) is guilty and sentenced to hard labor without benefit of representation.
You can not justify this war by not reading the case against it.
That was the situation and the reason for the war. It was premeditated and it had nothing to do with slavery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_A...
We face much the same today. I am forced to purchase healthcare insurance against my will (Ok, I really don't have to since my employer provides same, but I would if they didn't). Do I have justification just to stop paying my taxes? I wish that I did, as I'd do so immediately (and that doesn't even identify all the other things that I don't agree with in all the alphabet agencies). You can argue that it was punitive and wrong all you want, but if it was enacted legally, you have no basis for supporting illegal action.
As I said before, the issue of secession is not yet settled. What is settled is that a state once having joined the union cannot unilaterally dissolve that union. It may be possible if both parties agree on the dissolution (or the other states agree on absolving one of them of their bonds to the union, I hope that is the case).
The end of slavery was a "good" thing, but at what cost? The cost was more than a loss of lives.
The war resolved the question as to are the states individually sovereign or not. The answer after the war is that the states are no longer sovereign.
In that respect I definitely do NOT consider it a good thing.
Claiming that as a unilateral action is the equivalent of saying the the US acted unilaterally in both Kuwait and Iraq. When in fact a coalition took action in both interventions.
It follows that the Federal Government has abrogated all sovereign power to itself since the civil war.
I don't think that the Fed Gov't has assumed all sovereign power. As I said, the question seems to still be outstanding. Until/unless there is a definitive answer, we still don't know. For example, could current states "buy" their way out of the union?
Any "contractual arrangement" must be between the states as individuals.
The federal government was a by product to the union of States. Not a party to it, since it did not exist prior to the formation of that union.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qd8hy032...
I submit that the continual generation of "rules" from the Federal Agencies that have the de facto force of law constitutes near daily change.
Or are you arguing that the Fed is allowed to do whatever they want and we have no option other than compliance.
If so, you have agreed with me as to the outcome of the civil war (oxymoronic but I did not pick the name).
But again I disagree that a contract exists, and even if it did the Government violates it daily, so to me if it existed it would be null and void
Look, I'm a very old guy. Even though I have been using computers for over 20 years, I am the kind of user who just sticks to what I've learned. I don't know, or really care to know how it works, just so long as it works. Why pray tell, is Google evil, why is Bing superior? I've been using Google since its inception. Is Bing easier to use? How does it differ from Google? At present I am reading 3 different books, and doing research and communicating with people all over the world. I really don't want to learn any new computer programs. Help!