*gigglesnort*

...............Willowbark works just as well?

I get it.

Factual writing - and that which presents itself to be factual - needs to be just that.





Which part(s) of your un-attributed plagiarized post was/were factual?

* That President Obama, like 31% of our presidents didn't serve in the military?

* That President Obama, like 81% of our presidents didn't run a business?

* That President Obama, like 100% of our presidents isn't a CPA/accountant?

* That President Obama, like 100% of our presidents hasn't been a doctor, nurse, or in any other way affiliated with health care?

* That President Obama, like 50% of our presidents found his way to the office of the Presidency via State legislature, or that like 100% of our presidents he, too, has never been a mayor?




Ummmm...the meat of your presentation, which was really some other misinformed soul's presentation, is factually incorrect.

The only truth in what you both presented as fact is that he is, indeed, a man, as evidenced by the repeated "he" referenced throughout. And, he is a man that pisses a LOT of people off.


Welcome to being the President of the United States. This time - and so far - he has a singularly unique *reason* as to WHY he's so able to do so.

u are beyond,,, take it up with Webster,, or perhaps write your own dictionary,,,lol

to make an effort to do, accomplish, solve, or effect




an attempt can be successful or not,, but it has to happen before anything gets 'done'

Thank you for the citation. There is a reason I ask for citations...and a reason I ask for citations to legitimate sources.

Assuming Wikipedia IS a "legitimate" source, I was interested to see how the numbers would be interpreted; I was also curious how the deaths 'caused by Lincoln' vs. the deaths 'caused by Hitler/Tojo' were going to be defined.

I see they weren't.



(Per your own chosen-to-provide citation) 214,938 "Americans" (presumably you mean those people residing in the US and not those in Canada, Mexico, and South American countries) were killed via combat in the Civil War. 291,557 "Americans" were killed via combat in WWII.

291,557 is a greater number than 214,938. Ergo, you've proven yourself to be factually incorrect when making your presented-as-fact statement that "...Lincoln killed more Americans than Hitler and Tojo combined........
Plenty more......"


To boot, nowhere in the citations does it clarify how many "Americans" were killed by/because of Hitler's/Tojo's rule; it's simply a number of "American" casualties during the whole of WWII.


Furthermore, the Civil War was fought strictly on U.S. soil; save Pearl Harbor (which occurred before U.S. declared-war involvement), WWII was fought on foreign soil. Casualties (i.e., those not directly attributed to combat) of any homegrown, home-fought war will be higher than wars in which the home team participates in someone else's backyard to ensure higher casualties/higher (and ongoing and residual) costs of war remain elsewhere.



Thanks for the citation; it proved all I needed to know about the veracity of the entire post.

well, that could be one of MANY definitions of authority

here is another explanation




There is a fine line of difference between power and authority, especially as bases for LeaderShip.

JamesHunter writes in TheServant (pp.29-34) that "If leadership is about influencing others, how do we go about developing that influence with people?

How do we get people to do our will? How do we get their ideas, commitment, creativity, and excellence, which are by definition voluntary gifts? ... To better understand how one develops this type of influence, it is critical to understand the difference between power and authority. ...


Power: the ability of a person or a group to influence the beliefs and actions of other people. It is the ability to influence events. Power can be personal power.

A person gets his personal power from his personality or from his expert knowledge. Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers, Programmers, etc. get their power from their expertise and professional knowledge. Power can also be legitimate or official power.

This power comes from a higher authority.


Authority: the right given to a manager to achieve the objectives of the organisation.

It is a right to get the things done through others. It is a right to take decisions. It is a right to give orders to the subordinates and to get obedience from them. A manager cannot do his work without authority.


... Authority cannot be bought or sold, given or taken away.


Authority is about who you are as a person, your character, and the influence you've built with people [it is one's expression of one's self, which is treated thoroughly by WarrenBennis in OnBecomingaLeader]. ...


power erodes relationships. You can get a few seasons out of power, even accomplish some things, but over time power can be very damaging to relationships. ... there are times when we must exercise power ... in firing a bad employee [for example - but] we had to resort to power because our authority had broken down


[WattsHumphrey also acknowledges the risks of power]."
Needless to say, good LeaderShip leads by authority and not by power.


http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?PowerVersusAuthority


Note: if it is not obvious, the above is just one of thousands of descriptions online about the virtues and/or atrocities of 'authority'

The article quoted below...may throw a wider view ....while not exactly being off topic....!!!

Heal The Money System, Heal Society

by Suzanne Phillips




World Bank's former Chief Economist William Stiglitz was interviewed following his recent resignation in dissent of the bank's policies which cause economic devastation around the world. Under Commentary - The Globalizer Who Came In From The Cold ) At the end of his interview journalist Greg Palast concluded "the solution to world poverty and crisis is simple: remove the bloodsuckers."

To do this, it's necessary to understand how those who wield destructive financial might accumulate their power. Herewith a brief description of how a cleverly devised banking system robs the average person of the right to a decent life while providing enormous wealth for its corporate owners and stockholders:

Henry Ford, Sr., staunch member of the United States' business community, once said "If the people of the nation understood our banking and monetary system, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."

How did such a system get started? How do they keep it going? In 1935 during the Great Depression, the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency questioned the role of money as a basic cause of nationwide bank failures. To explain the workings of our monetary system they called Robert Hemphill, a former credit manager of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Georgia. Hemphill told the august committee a fable -'The Temple of the Thirteen Suns'.

The essence of this fable is that a rich man going on a journey wanted a way to pay expenses without having to haul his unwieldy supply of gold. The goldsmith agreed to store the gold at 10% interest and gave the traveler a receipt - an I.O.U. or letter of credit. After the traveler left, the goldsmith offered to lend this gold to any local merchant who would pledge all his possessions to him as security. In each case, the new borrower asked the goldsmith to keep the gold and give him a paper receipt. Thus the goldsmith still had all the gold - not to mention mortgages on the possessions of everyone who had borrowed from him! With each loan and payment of interest the goldsmith's fortune grew until he became wealthier than everyone in town. Reflecting upon this state of affairs he said, "What a lead-pipe cinch! I can collect just as much usury on this phony money as on the real gold."

So began the banking business. Money is based on credit. To be used equitably, money must be issued and its value controlled by governments for the general welfare of the nation and its people.

There is no need for money to be created as interest-bearing notes. However, it's still being issued this way worldwide by private banks against the security of people's own personal wealth or the wealth of other nations. The 'money' you borrow from them is created 'out of thin air.' It's a piece of paper that indicates you have pledged your possessions in exchange for your promise to repay the lenders of this money - with interest!

The crucial point to understand is that the way money is created and issued determines the workings of the marketplace. Money issued at interest by private banks, such as the United States Federal Reserve Bank, brings with it an overwhelming debt which has devastating effects on its own people and around the world. In contrast, money issued by a government without interest would benefit everyone. Instead of creating artificial shortages and causing horrendous suffering, interest-free money would simply be a medium of exchange and could release the abundance of human production.

According to authors Fraser and Morse in Tomorrow's Money: "The money of modern civilization is credit.[which] represents real wealth (goods and services}. But -- all our credit-tokens have been issued at-interest or as debt-tokens. First we had goldsmiths issuing credit-at-interest money to individuals. Next we had private banks issuing credit-at-interest money to individuals and the State. Now we have a Credit-Cartel issuing credit-at-interest to the entire world. Today, our wealth - your credit, and mine and the Nation's - is monetized in this way." (1)

"In England the goldsmith's method of issuing money was legalized under the Bank Act of 1694. [British] William of Orange needed money and [the Rothschild family] offered King William their gold - $6,000,000 - at 8% if he would give them a charter for a bank. And Permit them to issue an equal amount in paper notes at interest to themselves!" (2)

What's the matter with private banks issuing the nation's money? "The interest system enables private corporations to regulate and control the Nation's money supply - for their benefit instead of Society's" (3) (Does this remind you of the 2001 scarce energy crisis in California which suddenly turned into a glut, or the way gasoline prices rise and fall at the will of the oil barons?)

Not only is the total debt from interest physically impossible to repay -especially if based on scarce precious metals - but "The interest tribute increases our taxes, lowers our buying power, depresses and oppresses the Nation's production and business.The power and privilege to issue and regulate money are Sovereign Rights. They belong to the Nation - to us -and have been usurped and stolen from the people and the Nation to whom they rightfully belong." (4)

The American colonies' 1776 War of Independence against Britain was largely an effort to break free from the financial stranglehold placed upon them by the Bank of England. Space doesn't permit details of the struggle between Jefferson and Madison on the people's side vs. Alexander Hamilton representing a privileged group desiring to start a similar bank in the American colonies. Hamilton won and the private Bank of United States was chartered in 1791. "In all transactions, the Nation was to be jointly responsible with the bank - but was not - to receive any of the bank's profit's. Many other benefits accrued to enrich the bank and its stockholders, including a comprehensive tax exemption." (5)

Many government and other leaders in the U.S. have understood the power that money issuance gives to those who control it.

* In 1787 John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson "All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in the Constitution, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as down-right ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation."

* President Abraham Lincoln: "By Government creation of money, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest." Lincoln tried to change the system by having the Treasury Department issue "Greenbacks" which were non-interest bearing notes. He was assassinated in 1865.

* President James A. Garfield: "Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce."

Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states "The Congress shall have power to borrow money on the credit of the United States...and to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin." But since the beginning of our country, bankers have been exercising de facto power in issuing the nation's money. In 1913, Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act which consolidated the power to issue and regulate the nation's money and handed it over to the Federal Reserve Corporation, a consortium of private bankers. Understand that the Federal Reserve Bank is "federal" in name only.

* Congressman Charles A. Lindberg, Sr.: "This Act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President [Wilson] signs this bill the invisible government of the Monetary Power will be legalized. The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill."

* Congressman Louis T. McFadden (for 22 years Chairman of the U.S. Banking Currency Commission): "The Federal Reserve (privately owned banks) are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen."

The U.S. public, taught to believe that our money is based on gold, becomes alarmed when someone reports that gold is missing from the Treasury. This no longer matters. Our money hasn't been backed by gold since 1935 when the Roosevelt administration took us "off the gold standard". The paper money issued by the Federal Reserve Bank reads: 'THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE.'

* President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order 11110 in 1963 giving the Treasury Department power to issue silver certificates as the base of U.S. money. Once sufficient silver certificates existed it would eliminate the demand for Federal Reserve notes. JFK was assassinated five months later.

Others who championed the return of money issuance to the government included Congressmen Jerry Voorhis of California and Wright Patman of Ohio. These men understood what Mayer Anselm Rothschild, patriarch of the banking House of Rothschild, stated so clearly: "Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws"

Workers around the world have vastly increased their productivity, yet their standard of living has fallen drastically. How many people work two jobs to pay back money created 'out of thin air' using their own personal credit? How many millions in this country die premature deaths because 'there's no money' for food and doctor's bills? How many people in the 'Third World' starve to death because their countries are burdened with enormous debts to international bankers? (In mid-2001, foreign debt owed to Western bankers was $3,000,000,000,000 - three trillion dollars!)

Human corruption has devastated the Earth to the point where many experts fear it's impossible to restore a healthy environment. A change in consciousness is absolutely necessary. We need to stop exploiting each other. We need to act in a kindly and beneficial way toward the Earth and each other. Returning the power of issuing each nation's money to its own government is one step that will ease financial burdens and stop massive genocide against our fellow beings.

Is THAT why he printed Money like the best of your Fed-Chairs today?

Hazard Circular - London Times 1865 From this extract its plan to see that it is the advantage provided by the adopting of this policy which poses a threat to those not using it. 1863, nearly there, Lincoln needed just a bit more money to win the war, and seeing him in this vulnerable state, and knowing that the president could not get the congressional authority to issue more greenbacks, the money changers proposed the passing of the National Bank Act. The act went through. From this point on the entire US money supply would be created out of debt by bankers buying US government bonds and issuing them from reserves for bank notes. The greenbacks continued to be in circulation until 1994, their numbers were not increased but in fact decreased. "In numerous years following the war, the Federal Government ran a heavy surplus. It could not (however) pay off its debt, retire its securities, because to do so meant there would be no bonds to back the national bank notes. To pay off the debt was to destroy the money supply."

John Kenneth Galbrath The American economy has been based on government debt since 1864 and it is locked into this system. Talk of paying off the debt without first reforming the banking system is just talk and a complete impossibility. That same year Lincoln had a pleasant surprise. Turns out the Tsar of Russia, Alexander II, was well aware of the money changers scam. The Tsar was refusing to allow them to set up a central bank in Russia. If Lincoln could limit the power of the money changers and win the war, the bankers would not be able to split America and hand it back to Britain and France as planned. The Tsar knew that this handing back would come at a cost which would eventually need to be paid back by attacking Russia, it being clearly in the money changers sights. The Tsar declared that if France or Britain gave help to the South, Russia would consider this an act of war. Britain and France would instead wait in vain to have the wealth of the colonies returned to them, and while they waited Lincoln won the civil war. With an election coming up the next year, Lincoln himself would wait for renewed public support before reversing the National Bank Act he had been pressured into approving during the war. Lincoln's opposition to the central banks financial control and a proposed return to the gold standard is well documented. He would certainly have killed off the national banks monopoly had he not been killed himself only 41 days after being re-elected. The money changers were pressing for a gold standard because gold was scarce and easier to have a monopoly over. Much of this was already waiting in their hands and each gold merchant was well aware that what they really had could be easily made to seem like much much more. Silver would only widen the field and lower the share so they pressed for...

I know, that's why I used them

I Wasn't raised with the pompous idea that everything is an absolute,,,,

we 'attempt' many things which have no quantifiable measure,,,

its so obviously simple to do to just about ANYONE,,

but such a turnoff to a voter like myself,,,


how are you the BETTER choice,, that's what I want to know,, not how much you devote to tearing down someone else,, but how much reason I have to support YOU,,,


there is so much less of that in media today, its all about how negative and dirty it can get,,,

Im already aware of Lincolns views , I was raised in a home that attempted to keep us educated about our history, ancestry, etc

ty for proving my point

I wonder the value of history books that listed all the skeletons and bad decisions of our founding fathers and 'historical' figures,,as a balance to the spin of how great they were,,,

OR

conversely,, if it listed the accomplishment and contribution and good decisions of our villains and enemies,, as a balance to their demonization ?

a White Obama,that's what he would be!

http://www.americanstalin.com/

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Real Abraham Lincoln

They didn't teach you this in school...

Honest Abe's Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave.

Did you know that Abraham Lincoln practically imposed a dictatorship on the Northern states, closed down nearly 300 Northern newspapers, had thousands of Northerners arrested, invaded the Northern states of Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri and took over their legislatures, all because those three sovereign states didn't want to participate in his war which they considered unconstitutional.

The Writ of Habeas Corpus was suspended by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, during which tens of thousands of antiwar Northerners were imprisoned for voicing their views. Lincoln issued an arrest warrant for the Supreme Court Chief Justice when he correctly ruled that according to Article I of the Constitution, only Congress, not the president, could suspend the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Most Americans do not know that the American Civil War stated out as a kind of coup. While Congress was in recess the Lincoln warmongers had multiple provocations in the works to resupply and land troops in the Southern forts that were under a truce. At the time that was clearly an act of war. But their plan was to get the Confederates to fire on the resupply ships and then accuse them of starting the war. It worked very well. In the end Lincoln killed more Americans than Hitler and Tojo combined. Yet, he is still revered in the land of the free. The Red Chinese, when defending their treatment of Tibet, use Lincoln as their hero. Our press never reports that interesting twist over here.

At the beginning of the Civil War, Lincoln and his little coup of Northern Industrialists wanted a nice short six month war to get them out of a depression. The federal government was dead broke and 10,000 businesses had gone bankrupt in the North. They had agreed to pull out of the Southern port forts and a truce was in effect. Confederate peace negotiators in Arlington, Virginia were assured that the North had no military intentions toward the seceded South. 'We just have some hot heads we have to contend with up here before we can do a non-aggression treaty'.

To get the war started Lincoln launched multiple resupply missions to several of the forts, an act of war at the time, to get the Confederate States of America forces to fire on them which they did at Sumter in Charleston. Lincoln claimed that an innocent food supply convoy had been attacked. The archives showed they were landing troops, artillery and munitions. To this day we hardly ever meet a soul who knows this real history despite it's being right in our archives.

It is rare to find a military officer, especially a Yankee, that knows that the loading manifests for the Fort Sumter ships have been open in the archives for a hundred years. They clearly show the troops and cannons on the manifests. But these inconvenient facts are ignored by the professional historians...it has something to do with hurting book sales.

Lincoln killed more Americans than Hitler and Tojo combined........
Plenty more......

so, Im living the videos from this site

the media has such an impression on the populace, and the populace trusts on face value so much of the advertising(even political ADvertising, which unfortunately is seen as honest information)


what if Lincoln ran today?

http://www.flackcheck.org/lincoln-vs-mcclellan/

VetiGel: The Band-Aid of the Future Stops Bleeding Instantly

AWESOME!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJLxRcU9No4#t=94

I get it.

My mother raised us not to be 'lazy thinkers', so its important to me to take information riddled with opinions and check a few other sources before repeating it,,,

it astounds me how often people just repeat snippets with little to no further verifications,, especially when the snippets are so obviously RIDDLED with personal opinions, adjectives,, etc,,


I truly enjoyed your line by line with references though,,,ty

there is so much in that Mencken quote that inspires thought

1st. that though we espouse openly to prefer 'experience' in any number of areas,, we also espouse just as often to believe that the 'common' person should be elected instead, because those who have attained any power/experience are by nature more corrupt,,,

2nd , that although fools are hard to suffer, fools who believe themselves superiors are even more difficult

so is 'plain' the standard by which everything should be measured as appropriate,,,for representing the 'plain' folks,,,

or is excellence in all things the preferred leadership?

"As "democracy" is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be occupied by a downright fool and complete narcissistic moron."
--- H.L. Mencken, The Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

and this was part of why she lost my vote

I was truly torn between the two of them, until her dirty politics really disappointed me,,, I expected more from her,, maybe she will have learned and improved in 2016