Posted by MikeT23 on 8/15/2017 2:34:00 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.

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.

Damn, I **** all over you and then you hit me with a semi-compliment.

Now I feel bad.

Posted by toddcommish on 8/15/2017 2:26:00 PM (view original):

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.

"Life sucking argument style" is actually a perfect description. He's not the dumbest WIS user, but he's definitely the life-suckingest.

I'm wouldn't feel too complimented. I was comparing you to the two biggest unblocked by me retards on the site. And we know you're better than bracco, all3, wylie, tangplay, bronx, doug and a few others. IOW, I'll still argue with you because you haven't gone full-retard. Yet.

Dino lost his mind (and his shift key) a long time ago.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/15/2017 2:49:00 PM (view original):
I'm wouldn't feel too complimented. I was comparing you to the two biggest unblocked by me retards on the site. And we know you're better than bracco, all3, wylie, tangplay, bronx, doug and a few others. IOW, I'll still argue with you because you haven't gone full-retard. Yet.

No, I'm going to take it as a compliment. From now on, I'll be known as the Acceptable Liberal.

A_L? OK.

Who can be C_L? Cunty Liberal.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/15/2017 2:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/15/2017 2:49:00 PM (view original):
I'm wouldn't feel too complimented. I was comparing you to the two biggest unblocked by me retards on the site. And we know you're better than bracco, all3, wylie, tangplay, bronx, doug and a few others. IOW, I'll still argue with you because you haven't gone full-retard. Yet.

No, I'm going to take it as a compliment. From now on, I'll be known as the Acceptable Liberal.

You guys do have sort of a Hannity & Colmes routine going.

Soooooo.....I was fact-checking something before posting and ran across this:

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."


Anybody wanna guess who called slaves "property" in his Inaugural Address?

TEAR THAT RACIST!!! ************'S STATUE DOWN!!!!!!!

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/15/2017 4:15:00 PM (view original):
Soooooo.....I was fact-checking something before posting and ran across this:

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."


Anybody wanna guess who called slaves "property" in his Inaugural Address?

Are you STILL arguing that slaves were property???

No. ****. Sherlock.

No one is denying that.

The point I've made is that it wasn't a mystery what the property was. The property was people. As you pointed out already, slavery was recognized worldwide as a terrible thing by the mid-1800's.

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!!!!!"

And honestly how is this example conversation different than what actually happened?

I didn't have to argue about what Lincoln said/didn't say before he was POTUS..

I've simply had to argue whether he actively chose bloodshed over negotiation(he did), whether it's his fault that 600,000+ Americans died(it is) and whether he was a ****** President(he was but that's open to interpretation if you weigh good vs bad).

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/15/2017 6:02:00 PM (view original):
I didn't have to argue about what Lincoln said/didn't say before he was POTUS..

I've simply had to argue whether he actively chose bloodshed over negotiation(he did), whether it's his fault that 600,000+ Americans died(it is) and whether he was a ****** President(he was but that's open to interpretation if you weigh good vs bad).

The South caused the war.

Who fired the first shot?

"YOU TELL THEM MIKE"