Posted by laramiebob on 8/15/2017 12:24:00 PM (view original):
In downtown Tucson there is a statue of Pancho Villa on his horse. Should it be pulled down because he "killed" Americans? I can assure you that there are a number of Tucson citizens who DO care very much about it's historical significance. History is supposed to inform us. Pulling down historical monuments in a fit of childish mob-like (peer-pressured!) behavior is not "patriotic" in any way. It's illegal, and stupid beyond belief!! Just like burning down your own neighborhood in some protest against authority. Those that think that behavior commendable have publicly certified themselves morons!

You just described bad_luck as he thinks riots are OK.

Posted by laramiebob on 8/15/2017 12:24:00 PM (view original):
In downtown Tucson there is a statue of Pancho Villa on his horse. Should it be pulled down because he "killed" Americans? I can assure you that there are a number of Tucson citizens who DO care very much about it's historical significance. History is supposed to inform us. Pulling down historical monuments in a fit of childish mob-like (peer-pressured!) behavior is not "patriotic" in any way. It's illegal, and stupid beyond belief!! Just like burning down your own neighborhood in some protest against authority. Those that think that behavior commendable have publicly certified themselves morons!

Did Pancho Villa gain his fame fighting for the right to own people?

It's a "tad" simplistic to attribute the CSA general's (ANY of them) "reasoning" for fighting for the CSA to simply slavery, don't you think? Many of them were buddies with Custer (for example) who made the decision to "fight" for the Union. Custer's decision to join the Union (quite probably) was influenced by his OWN ideas, not a one of which was opposition to slavery....... at least not that I can find in any honest historical analysis of that egomaniac.

BL, please explain which people who killed Americans should be eligible to have a statue. Thanks in advance.

Because I always thought, the more Americans you kill, the bigger the statue. Lincoln Memorial is HUGE!!!!

FYI, a really good read on the Civil War, with respect to both the miltary and political/societal aspects of the war is James McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom".

BL might learn a thing or two by reading a book.

Posted by laramiebob on 8/15/2017 12:41:00 PM (view original):
It's a "tad" simplistic to attribute the CSA general's (ANY of them) "reasoning" for fighting for the CSA to simply slavery, don't you think? Many of them were buddies with Custer (for example) who made the decision to "fight" for the Union. Custer's decision to join the Union (quite probably) was influenced by his OWN ideas, not a one of which was opposition to slavery....... at least not that I can find in any honest historical analysis of that egomaniac.

Good point, laramiebob, but then again Albert Speer's "reasoning" for working for Hitler had nothing to do with Jews. Which I suppose earned Speer enough points to avoid a death sentence at the Nuremberg trials, but still got him 20 years in Spandau -- and zero statues.

By the way, why do so many white nationalists in America bring both the Nazi and Confederate flags to their rallies? Can't they settle on one flag?

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/15/2017 12:53:00 PM (view original):
BL, please explain which people who killed Americans should be eligible to have a statue. Thanks in advance.

Oh it's pretty easy. Did you fight for the south in the civil war? If yes, no statue or memorial. Anyone else is eligible on a case by case basis.

Posted by toddcommish on 8/15/2017 12:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by crazystengel on 8/15/2017 12:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 8/15/2017 11:45:00 AM (view original):
Y'know, I'm not really a fan of MikeT's rhetorical style, nor his overstated, deliberately provocative stances on some issues. But the way he ties BL up in knots and gets him to make stupid, contradictory statements is fascinating to watch. It's like watching someone peel apart a liberal and expose the stupid, gooey center.

You guys who are "really not fans" of MikeT23 and Trump aren't fooling anyone.

But sure, "Lincoln = Saddam you dumbass retard" is really tying BL up in knots.

WIN MIKET23!!!1

Bah, it's less of pro-MikeT and more of anti-BL.

Rooting for MikeT is like rooting for Jerry Jones. OTOH, rooting for BL is like rooting for Jerry Brown.

rooting for either of them is a stupid thing to do...kind of like sticking your hand in a running garbage disposal.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/15/2017 10:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/15/2017 10:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/15/2017 9:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/15/2017 9:55:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/15/2017 9:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/15/2017 9:47:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/15/2017 9:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/15/2017 9:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/15/2017 9:26:00 AM (view original):
Okay so instead of

"We know Lincoln wanted to end slavery."

You should have said

"I think Lincoln wanted to end slavery and he may have started a war do it."

I could have said a lot of things. Most here believe Lincoln ended slavery and he intended to. I'd have had to start with "Lincoln never stated he wanted to end slavery before the Civil War" and defend that first.

I took a shortcut to argue. Sue me.

But he did start a war that he decided to start before he took office. Negotiation was not part of his agenda. That's what I object to.

I'm not sure if most believed that. Maybe. I didn't and I know others in this thread didn't.

But that would have been a more interesting and productive conversation than throwing out inflammatory statements like "lincoln killed 600,000 Americans over property".

Actually, you said the opposite of what happened and stated it as a fact. Saying you KNOW he wanted to end slavery because you "took a shortcut" is a pretty lame excuse for saying something that is incorrect.

I said "We KNOW..." and the only person who posted anything contrary, prior to you, was tec. That sort of leads me to believe "Most here believe Lincoln ended slavery and he intended to" is correct. Or at least no one was objecting to the statement.

But if YOU didn't think that then why did you say it?

I could have said a lot of things. Most here believe Lincoln ended slavery and he intended to. I'd have had to start with "Lincoln never stated he wanted to end slavery before the Civil War" and defend that first.

I took a shortcut to argue. Sue me.

So you say things you don't really believe because you're too lazy to defend your viewpoint?

You clearly have plenty of time and inclination to post on this site arguing your side based upon your post history.

I KNOW you are not telling the truth because most people on here believe it (see what I did there)

Sometimes. It would have been difficult for me to prove "Pre-Civil War Lincoln never said he wanted to free slaves." I'm sure you understand why.

Time, sometimes. Softball season starts tonight. I'll have less time. Inclination, not so much. I pick and choose.

The appropriate value has been placed on your statement of knowledge.

No, I don't understand why.

This article that was shared in this thread did a pretty good job of getting the ball rolling. Any reliable historian will say basically the same thing. Lincoln's position was to limit the spread of slavery to the new territories as settlers traveled West.

So instead of trying to defend what you truly believe, you say the opposite. Then you proceed to make dozens of posts that contradict what you said initially.

Did zorzii hack your account?

Posted by Benis on 8/15/2017 1:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/15/2017 10:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/15/2017 10:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/15/2017 9:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/15/2017 9:55:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/15/2017 9:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/15/2017 9:47:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/15/2017 9:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/15/2017 9:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/15/2017 9:26:00 AM (view original):
Okay so instead of

"We know Lincoln wanted to end slavery."

You should have said

"I think Lincoln wanted to end slavery and he may have started a war do it."

I could have said a lot of things. Most here believe Lincoln ended slavery and he intended to. I'd have had to start with "Lincoln never stated he wanted to end slavery before the Civil War" and defend that first.

I took a shortcut to argue. Sue me.

But he did start a war that he decided to start before he took office. Negotiation was not part of his agenda. That's what I object to.

I'm not sure if most believed that. Maybe. I didn't and I know others in this thread didn't.

But that would have been a more interesting and productive conversation than throwing out inflammatory statements like "lincoln killed 600,000 Americans over property".

Actually, you said the opposite of what happened and stated it as a fact. Saying you KNOW he wanted to end slavery because you "took a shortcut" is a pretty lame excuse for saying something that is incorrect.

I said "We KNOW..." and the only person who posted anything contrary, prior to you, was tec. That sort of leads me to believe "Most here believe Lincoln ended slavery and he intended to" is correct. Or at least no one was objecting to the statement.

But if YOU didn't think that then why did you say it?

I could have said a lot of things. Most here believe Lincoln ended slavery and he intended to. I'd have had to start with "Lincoln never stated he wanted to end slavery before the Civil War" and defend that first.

I took a shortcut to argue. Sue me.

So you say things you don't really believe because you're too lazy to defend your viewpoint?

You clearly have plenty of time and inclination to post on this site arguing your side based upon your post history.

I KNOW you are not telling the truth because most people on here believe it (see what I did there)

Sometimes. It would have been difficult for me to prove "Pre-Civil War Lincoln never said he wanted to free slaves." I'm sure you understand why.

Time, sometimes. Softball season starts tonight. I'll have less time. Inclination, not so much. I pick and choose.

The appropriate value has been placed on your statement of knowledge.

No, I don't understand why.

This article that was shared in this thread did a pretty good job of getting the ball rolling. Any reliable historian will say basically the same thing. Lincoln's position was to limit the spread of slavery to the new territories as settlers traveled West.

So instead of trying to defend what you truly believe, you say the opposite. Then you proceed to make dozens of posts that contradict what you said initially.

Did zorzii hack your account?

OK, I'll play along.

I say "Lincoln never stated he wanted to free slaves pre-Civil War."
Someone else says "Are you sure?"
I say "Well, not 100%. I haven't read EVERY statement EVER attributed to Lincoln. I know he opposed slavery his entire life."
Someone else says "SO YOU'RE NOT 100% SURE HE NEVER SAID HE WANTED TO FREE SLAVES PRE-CIVIL WAR?"
I say "Can you read? I just said I'm not 100% sure."
Someone says "AHA, ************!!!!! IN 1855, THE LONG GONE, AND OBSCURE, CHEYENNE DAILY NEWS QUOTED LINCOLN AS SAYING "IF I COULD, I'D ABOLISH SLAVERY TODAY!!!! BUT I'M JUST A CHERRY FARMER!!!!!"

Posted by wylie715 on 8/15/2017 1:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 8/15/2017 12:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by crazystengel on 8/15/2017 12:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 8/15/2017 11:45:00 AM (view original):
Y'know, I'm not really a fan of MikeT's rhetorical style, nor his overstated, deliberately provocative stances on some issues. But the way he ties BL up in knots and gets him to make stupid, contradictory statements is fascinating to watch. It's like watching someone peel apart a liberal and expose the stupid, gooey center.

You guys who are "really not fans" of MikeT23 and Trump aren't fooling anyone.

But sure, "Lincoln = Saddam you dumbass retard" is really tying BL up in knots.

WIN MIKET23!!!1

Bah, it's less of pro-MikeT and more of anti-BL.

Rooting for MikeT is like rooting for Jerry Jones. OTOH, rooting for BL is like rooting for Jerry Brown.

rooting for either of them is a stupid thing to do...kind of like sticking your hand in a running garbage disposal.

That's kinda my point. BL's rhetorical style (asking did-you-stop-beating-your-wife type questions) to try and make liberal points is still more irritating than MikeT's chest-beating, try-and-provoke-you-into-a-life-sucking-argument style. YMMV.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/15/2017 2:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/15/2017 1:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/15/2017 10:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/15/2017 10:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/15/2017 9:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/15/2017 9:55:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/15/2017 9:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/15/2017 9:47:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/15/2017 9:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/15/2017 9:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/15/2017 9:26:00 AM (view original):
Okay so instead of

"We know Lincoln wanted to end slavery."

You should have said

"I think Lincoln wanted to end slavery and he may have started a war do it."

I could have said a lot of things. Most here believe Lincoln ended slavery and he intended to. I'd have had to start with "Lincoln never stated he wanted to end slavery before the Civil War" and defend that first.

I took a shortcut to argue. Sue me.

But he did start a war that he decided to start before he took office. Negotiation was not part of his agenda. That's what I object to.

I'm not sure if most believed that. Maybe. I didn't and I know others in this thread didn't.

But that would have been a more interesting and productive conversation than throwing out inflammatory statements like "lincoln killed 600,000 Americans over property".

Actually, you said the opposite of what happened and stated it as a fact. Saying you KNOW he wanted to end slavery because you "took a shortcut" is a pretty lame excuse for saying something that is incorrect.

I said "We KNOW..." and the only person who posted anything contrary, prior to you, was tec. That sort of leads me to believe "Most here believe Lincoln ended slavery and he intended to" is correct. Or at least no one was objecting to the statement.

But if YOU didn't think that then why did you say it?

I could have said a lot of things. Most here believe Lincoln ended slavery and he intended to. I'd have had to start with "Lincoln never stated he wanted to end slavery before the Civil War" and defend that first.

I took a shortcut to argue. Sue me.

So you say things you don't really believe because you're too lazy to defend your viewpoint?

You clearly have plenty of time and inclination to post on this site arguing your side based upon your post history.

I KNOW you are not telling the truth because most people on here believe it (see what I did there)

Sometimes. It would have been difficult for me to prove "Pre-Civil War Lincoln never said he wanted to free slaves." I'm sure you understand why.

Time, sometimes. Softball season starts tonight. I'll have less time. Inclination, not so much. I pick and choose.

The appropriate value has been placed on your statement of knowledge.

No, I don't understand why.

This article that was shared in this thread did a pretty good job of getting the ball rolling. Any reliable historian will say basically the same thing. Lincoln's position was to limit the spread of slavery to the new territories as settlers traveled West.

So instead of trying to defend what you truly believe, you say the opposite. Then you proceed to make dozens of posts that contradict what you said initially.

Did zorzii hack your account?

OK, I'll play along.

I say "Lincoln never stated he wanted to free slaves pre-Civil War."
Someone else says "Are you sure?"
I say "Well, not 100%. I haven't read EVERY statement EVER attributed to Lincoln. I know he opposed slavery his entire life."
Someone else says "SO YOU'RE NOT 100% SURE HE NEVER SAID HE WANTED TO FREE SLAVES PRE-CIVIL WAR?"
I say "Can you read? I just said I'm not 100% sure."
Someone says "AHA, ************!!!!! IN 1855, THE LONG GONE, AND OBSCURE, CHEYENNE DAILY NEWS QUOTED LINCOLN AS SAYING "IF I COULD, I'D ABOLISH SLAVERY TODAY!!!! BUT I'M JUST A CHERRY FARMER!!!!!"

See, mike's cautious like that. he doesn't want to let his mouth overload his ***. He would never say something dumb that might leave him exposed as the idiot he really is...like...oh, I don't know...Lincoln = Saddam or the feds could reduce the deficit by selling more bonds.

Posted by toddcommish on 8/15/2017 11:45:00 AM (view original):
Y'know, I'm not really a fan of MikeT's rhetorical style, nor his overstated, deliberately provocative stances on some issues. But the way he ties BL up in knots and gets him to make stupid, contradictory statements is fascinating to watch. It's like watching someone peel apart a liberal and expose the stupid, gooey center.

To be fair, BL is almost acceptable as a liberal. Other than his uber-retarded "Trump wants to **** his daughter!!!!" statement, he's fairly reasonable. dino and stengal have gone full-retard and you can't come back from that. stengal spent 3 days talking about handshakes and dino's posts get less rational every day.

Comparing Lincoln to Saddam really isn't fair. To Saddam. He waited until AFTER he was in power to start killing his citizens. Bloody Abe decided well in advance that he'd turn the US into a battlefield.