Yea, but it's easier to argue about this rather than squabble about Chump, Russia, NOKO, etc. That's all just a major clusterf*ck that we can't do a damn thing about (Now!) except argue. We're paying the price for our own non-involvement and poor judgment.

Lincoln would have ****** the USA up bigly if he was POTUS now. Protestors? Shoot 'em in the street. Bloody Abe didn't like resistance.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/11/2017 8:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 9:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 8/10/2017 9:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 8:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bagchucker on 8/10/2017 5:32:00 PM (view original):
you fellas would argue over a turd

I was simply pointing out to the "LINCOLN FREED SLAVES!!!! HE'S THE BESTEST!!!!" folk that it came with a heavy price. 600,000+ American lives and he didn't even FREE THE SLAVES!!!! until after all those Americans were dead.

There is a reason for that. Lincoln didn't 'free the slaves' for a reason. He would have lost the border states to the CSA and not actually freed any slaves in the process had he done it in 1861. Again, you assume that Lincoln had a 'good choice' to make. He did not. Mike has not said what he would rather lincoln have done, or admitted that we don't live in a dream world

This. Once the south seceded, war was inevitable.

Once you decide war is inevitable, you've lost your decency as a human being.

Lincoln won the election in November. The South started seceding in December. Lincoln took office in March. The Civil War started in April. The Great Negotiator. Terrible President that killed 600,000+ Americans without seeking a better option.

And I blocked tangplay because he KNOWS what would have happened 157 years ago. Speculative nonsense I'd rather not deal with.

My favorite mike is moral-high-horse mike.

How do you know he didn't seek a better option?

Do you think, considering the times, that one month is long enough to explore all options?

NKorea has been threatening to nuke everybody for 6 months. Your favorite Prez has done nothing but yammer on about how that will bring hell to NK. Lincoln would have nuked them within the hour with his warmongering ways.

Mike, the reason you blocked me is because I CONTINUALLY listed out the options, and you never responded to them. Because you can't.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/11/2017 11:29:00 AM (view original):
Do you think, considering the times, that one month is long enough to explore all options?

NKorea has been threatening to nuke everybody for 6 months. Your favorite Prez has done nothing but yammer on about how that will bring hell to NK. Lincoln would have nuked them within the hour with his warmongering ways.

How much time would have been needed to explore all options? Do you think the South would have given in?

The South decided Lincoln wouldn't work before he was even elected. They'd been threatening secession for a decade.

And Mike has been the worst at 'speculative nonsense' because HE SAID THE SOUTH WOULD BAN SLAVERY IN 4 YEARS

Posted by tangplay on 8/10/2017 2:16:00 PM (view original):
Again, Mike, Lincoln is not Saddam because Saddam had other options and didn't free millions of slaves. Lincolns options were:

• a) Ban slavery in the United States - Would cause the border states to secede and make an inevitable war last longer and kill more people, all while not actually freeing any slaves
• b) Wait longer to join the war - Pointless because nothing new would happen besides the South maybe being more prepared.
• c) Go to war sooner rather than later - Had some casualties but freeing millions of slaves when he did was pretty great.

Option a and b would not help a thing and will potentially kill more people.




BUMP BUUUMP (dum dum dum dum dum)

BUMP (Please repost bad_luck so mike sees this)

Posted by bad_luck on 8/11/2017 11:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/11/2017 11:29:00 AM (view original):
Do you think, considering the times, that one month is long enough to explore all options?

NKorea has been threatening to nuke everybody for 6 months. Your favorite Prez has done nothing but yammer on about how that will bring hell to NK. Lincoln would have nuked them within the hour with his warmongering ways.

How much time would have been needed to explore all options? Do you think the South would have given in?

The South decided Lincoln wouldn't work before he was even elected. They'd been threatening secession for a decade.

A) I'm not tangplay. I don't KNOW EXACTLY how things would have went 157 years ago. I am of the belief that viewpoints evolve. Slavery would have ended when slaves were no longer looked at as lesser humans(if human at all). Judging from the treatment of Native Americans after the Civil War, it took America, as a whole, quite awhile to view **** sapiens the same. It wasn't a North/South thing, we were just a bit barbaric in our thinking.

B) It wasn't just Lincoln. Congressional seats were won, overwhelmingly, by Republicans in the same election year. The Southern states, wary after the Tariff of Abominations that greatly favored Northern industry, felt the new Congress could railroad legislation thru that would greatly benefit Northern industry to the detriment of Southern commerce. Read a book about it or something. Otherwise, I'm gonna have to charge you a tutorial fee.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/11/2017 11:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/11/2017 11:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/11/2017 11:29:00 AM (view original):
Do you think, considering the times, that one month is long enough to explore all options?

NKorea has been threatening to nuke everybody for 6 months. Your favorite Prez has done nothing but yammer on about how that will bring hell to NK. Lincoln would have nuked them within the hour with his warmongering ways.

How much time would have been needed to explore all options? Do you think the South would have given in?

The South decided Lincoln wouldn't work before he was even elected. They'd been threatening secession for a decade.

A) I'm not tangplay. I don't KNOW EXACTLY how things would have went 157 years ago. I am of the belief that viewpoints evolve. Slavery would have ended when slaves were no longer looked at as lesser humans(if human at all). Judging from the treatment of Native Americans after the Civil War, it took America, as a whole, quite awhile to view **** sapiens the same. It wasn't a North/South thing, we were just a bit barbaric in our thinking.

B) It wasn't just Lincoln. Congressional seats were won, overwhelmingly, by Republicans in the same election year. The Southern states, wary after the Tariff of Abominations that greatly favored Northern industry, felt the new Congress could railroad legislation thru that would greatly benefit Northern industry to the detriment of Southern commerce. Read a book about it or something. Otherwise, I'm gonna have to charge you a tutorial fee.

a) Considering the fact that there are still people today who see blacks as lesser humans...I don't buy the argument that the South would have voluntarily given up slavery. They literally went to war to preserve it.

b) That tariff was passed 30 years before secession. The states specifically said that they were worried they'd lose slavery and had to secede. Again, they went to war to preserve slavery. No rational person thinks they'd have given it up any time soon.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/11/2017 12:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/11/2017 11:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/11/2017 11:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/11/2017 11:29:00 AM (view original):
Do you think, considering the times, that one month is long enough to explore all options?

NKorea has been threatening to nuke everybody for 6 months. Your favorite Prez has done nothing but yammer on about how that will bring hell to NK. Lincoln would have nuked them within the hour with his warmongering ways.

How much time would have been needed to explore all options? Do you think the South would have given in?

The South decided Lincoln wouldn't work before he was even elected. They'd been threatening secession for a decade.

A) I'm not tangplay. I don't KNOW EXACTLY how things would have went 157 years ago. I am of the belief that viewpoints evolve. Slavery would have ended when slaves were no longer looked at as lesser humans(if human at all). Judging from the treatment of Native Americans after the Civil War, it took America, as a whole, quite awhile to view **** sapiens the same. It wasn't a North/South thing, we were just a bit barbaric in our thinking.

B) It wasn't just Lincoln. Congressional seats were won, overwhelmingly, by Republicans in the same election year. The Southern states, wary after the Tariff of Abominations that greatly favored Northern industry, felt the new Congress could railroad legislation thru that would greatly benefit Northern industry to the detriment of Southern commerce. Read a book about it or something. Otherwise, I'm gonna have to charge you a tutorial fee.

a) Considering the fact that there are still people today who see blacks as lesser humans...I don't buy the argument that the South would have voluntarily given up slavery. They literally went to war to preserve it.

b) That tariff was passed 30 years before secession. The states specifically said that they were worried they'd lose slavery and had to secede. Again, they went to war to preserve slavery. No rational person thinks they'd have given it up any time soon.

A) The fringe does not make the rules/laws. Doesn't matter what you buy. But you're a moron if you think, had Lincoln not started killing Americans by the thousands, that there would still be slavery today. Is that what you think?

B) I'm well aware of when it passed. Other legislation was passed after that. The states, specifically, gave several varied reasons. It's easy to look up if you have internet access. Slavery was an issue. But, overall, it was economy. Had there been a way to procure cost-effective labor, or machinery, for picking cotton, or legislation ensuring that it would be cheaper to import goods from the South rather than overseas, there would have been no need for slaves. The South needed an economic means to continue to make ends meet. The North, and the heavy Republican Congress, didn't give a ****.

You love to portray the South as a victim. **** those slave owning *******. You build your economy on the backs of slaves, you deserve to eat **** when the world wakes up and decides you can't have slaves anymore.

Well, slavery was legal in the United States until 1865. Lots of slave owning ******* in the US in the first hundred years of existence. Then, when we wanted more land, we started killing Native Americans to get it. Again, it's not a North/South thing. The United States of America didn't mind building economies or expanding territories at the expense of human lives.

Do you even vaguely understand what I'm saying?

Posted by bad_luck on 8/11/2017 12:17:00 PM (view original):
You love to portray the South as a victim. **** those slave owning *******. You build your economy on the backs of slaves, you deserve to eat **** when the world wakes up and decides you can't have slaves anymore.

Shouldn't that sentiment apply to the entire US, considering what was done to the native Americans who were here first?

(Bl please repost my above post so Mike sees it)