Posted by tangplay on 8/10/2017 12:54:00 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, until Mike actually responds to this

Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 1:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 1:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 1:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 1:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 12:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 12:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 12:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 12:09:00 PM (view original):
LOL. Never? Are you the modern day Nosterdumbass?

The South seceded and went to war over their right to own slaves. They weren't giving it up voluntarily any time soon.

No, you said "NEVER" not "any time soon".

Did you realize how ******* stupid that made you look and changed your stance?

Wait, so the guy who equated Lincoln to Saddam Hussein is going to try to give me **** for being slightly hyperbolic???

So you don't think Saddam was doing what he thought was best for his country, and maintaining his power, when he started killing Kurds?

I disagree.

No, I don't think Saddam's genocide was comparable to Lincoln winning the Civil War after the South chose to fight to continue to own people.

Well, I'd try another leader but the options are pretty limited. Not a lot of Presidents, Dictators, Kings, etc kill their OWN people to maintain their power/structure. Most have the decency to kill people from other countries.

At that point, the South was another country. Another country that left the US because it wanted to continue to own people.

The only way to free the 4 million slaves being held in the South was to go to war.

Hmmmmm.....are you using revisionist history?

If I recall correctly, the US government did not recognize the CSA as a country. Am I misremembering? Because, if I'm not, Lincoln was killing US citizens.

Don't blame Lincoln for the terrible situation the previous presidents put on him, I'm assuming you voted for Polk, why didn't he ban slavery? Why didn't any of the previous presidents ban slavery? And in Lincoln's eyes the war was just as much about unity as it was Slavery, LINCOLN WOULD NEVER JUST LET THE SOUTH SECEDE. And it was a good decision on his part. It's because of people like Polk that Lincoln had only bad decisions to make

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 2:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 1:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 1:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 1:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 1:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 12:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 12:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 12:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 12:09:00 PM (view original):
LOL. Never? Are you the modern day Nosterdumbass?

The South seceded and went to war over their right to own slaves. They weren't giving it up voluntarily any time soon.

No, you said "NEVER" not "any time soon".

Did you realize how ******* stupid that made you look and changed your stance?

Wait, so the guy who equated Lincoln to Saddam Hussein is going to try to give me **** for being slightly hyperbolic???

So you don't think Saddam was doing what he thought was best for his country, and maintaining his power, when he started killing Kurds?

I disagree.

No, I don't think Saddam's genocide was comparable to Lincoln winning the Civil War after the South chose to fight to continue to own people.

Well, I'd try another leader but the options are pretty limited. Not a lot of Presidents, Dictators, Kings, etc kill their OWN people to maintain their power/structure. Most have the decency to kill people from other countries.

At that point, the South was another country. Another country that left the US because it wanted to continue to own people.

The only way to free the 4 million slaves being held in the South was to go to war.

Hmmmmm.....are you using revisionist history?

If I recall correctly, the US government did not recognize the CSA as a country. Am I misremembering? Because, if I'm not, Lincoln was killing US citizens.

What do you suggest? Lincoln only had bad options, as war was literally inevitable

Posted by tangplay on 8/10/2017 1:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 1:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 8/10/2017 12:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 12:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 12:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 12:09:00 PM (view original):
LOL. Never? Are you the modern day Nosterdumbass?

The South seceded and went to war over their right to own slaves. They weren't giving it up voluntarily any time soon.

No, you said "NEVER" not "any time soon".

Did you realize how ******* stupid that made you look and changed your stance?

Mike, you are the one who said that the south would have changed their outlook on slavery in less than 4 years, and then talked about how it took 20+ years to change your outlook on gay people.

Sigh....my outlook on gay people, according to the timeline, didn't take 20+ years. Unless you think SSM has been an issue for 20+ years. I went from "WTF is wrong with them?" to "So what?" practically overnight when I actually became an adult.. I went from "Why in the hell do they insist on marriage?" to "Who cares? Let them and the RR fight it out" in less than a year after SSM passed. So, truthfully, in my adult life, it might have been a few months.

Would slavery have ended in a few months? Unlikely. A few years? Maybe. Viewpoints change. Once the US law declassified slaves as property, they would have been viewed as people. Maybe lesser people like the Native Americans, and deserving of death, but still people.

IT WOULD NOT HAVE ENDED IN A FEW YEARS! WOMEN COULDN'T EVEN VOTE UNTIL 1920! BLACK PEOPLE HAD BARELY ANY RIGHTS UNTIL THE 60'S THEIR VIEWPOINTS OBVIOUSLY DID NOT CHANGE, RESEARCH ON RECONSTRUCTION

You have no idea. You simply don't. If you're all-knowing, please tell me who will win the World Series, Super Bowl and World Cup so I can lay down some wagers. Thanks in advance.

Who fired the first shots of the Civil War?

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 2:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 1:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 1:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 1:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 1:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 12:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 12:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 12:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 12:09:00 PM (view original):
LOL. Never? Are you the modern day Nosterdumbass?

The South seceded and went to war over their right to own slaves. They weren't giving it up voluntarily any time soon.

No, you said "NEVER" not "any time soon".

Did you realize how ******* stupid that made you look and changed your stance?

Wait, so the guy who equated Lincoln to Saddam Hussein is going to try to give me **** for being slightly hyperbolic???

So you don't think Saddam was doing what he thought was best for his country, and maintaining his power, when he started killing Kurds?

I disagree.

No, I don't think Saddam's genocide was comparable to Lincoln winning the Civil War after the South chose to fight to continue to own people.

Well, I'd try another leader but the options are pretty limited. Not a lot of Presidents, Dictators, Kings, etc kill their OWN people to maintain their power/structure. Most have the decency to kill people from other countries.

At that point, the South was another country. Another country that left the US because it wanted to continue to own people.

The only way to free the 4 million slaves being held in the South was to go to war.

Hmmmmm.....are you using revisionist history?

If I recall correctly, the US government did not recognize the CSA as a country. Am I misremembering? Because, if I'm not, Lincoln was killing US citizens.

Would you like to field this one, BL?

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 2:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 8/10/2017 1:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 1:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 8/10/2017 12:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 12:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 12:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 12:09:00 PM (view original):
LOL. Never? Are you the modern day Nosterdumbass?

The South seceded and went to war over their right to own slaves. They weren't giving it up voluntarily any time soon.

No, you said "NEVER" not "any time soon".

Did you realize how ******* stupid that made you look and changed your stance?

Mike, you are the one who said that the south would have changed their outlook on slavery in less than 4 years, and then talked about how it took 20+ years to change your outlook on gay people.

Sigh....my outlook on gay people, according to the timeline, didn't take 20+ years. Unless you think SSM has been an issue for 20+ years. I went from "WTF is wrong with them?" to "So what?" practically overnight when I actually became an adult.. I went from "Why in the hell do they insist on marriage?" to "Who cares? Let them and the RR fight it out" in less than a year after SSM passed. So, truthfully, in my adult life, it might have been a few months.

Would slavery have ended in a few months? Unlikely. A few years? Maybe. Viewpoints change. Once the US law declassified slaves as property, they would have been viewed as people. Maybe lesser people like the Native Americans, and deserving of death, but still people.

IT WOULD NOT HAVE ENDED IN A FEW YEARS! WOMEN COULDN'T EVEN VOTE UNTIL 1920! BLACK PEOPLE HAD BARELY ANY RIGHTS UNTIL THE 60'S THEIR VIEWPOINTS OBVIOUSLY DID NOT CHANGE, RESEARCH ON RECONSTRUCTION

You have no idea. You simply don't. If you're all-knowing, please tell me who will win the World Series, Super Bowl and World Cup so I can lay down some wagers. Thanks in advance.

After the war ended, people in the south promised that they would do things to the black people so bad that it would be "worse than slavery", look it up. There is NO WAY that slavery would be banned in the south, especially because SLAVERY WAS THE SOUTH'S INCOME! The south would not have survived without slavery. That's one of the reasons they seceded. So even if your stupid idea that people change in 4 years is correct, it still would not happen

Posted by tangplay on 8/10/2017 1:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 8/10/2017 12:54:00 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, until Mike actually responds to this

Bumpedy bump bump

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 2:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 2:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 1:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 1:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 1:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 1:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 12:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 12:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 12:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 12:09:00 PM (view original):
LOL. Never? Are you the modern day Nosterdumbass?

The South seceded and went to war over their right to own slaves. They weren't giving it up voluntarily any time soon.

No, you said "NEVER" not "any time soon".

Did you realize how ******* stupid that made you look and changed your stance?

Wait, so the guy who equated Lincoln to Saddam Hussein is going to try to give me **** for being slightly hyperbolic???

So you don't think Saddam was doing what he thought was best for his country, and maintaining his power, when he started killing Kurds?

I disagree.

No, I don't think Saddam's genocide was comparable to Lincoln winning the Civil War after the South chose to fight to continue to own people.

Well, I'd try another leader but the options are pretty limited. Not a lot of Presidents, Dictators, Kings, etc kill their OWN people to maintain their power/structure. Most have the decency to kill people from other countries.

At that point, the South was another country. Another country that left the US because it wanted to continue to own people.

The only way to free the 4 million slaves being held in the South was to go to war.

Hmmmmm.....are you using revisionist history?

If I recall correctly, the US government did not recognize the CSA as a country. Am I misremembering? Because, if I'm not, Lincoln was killing US citizens.

Would you like to field this one, BL?

Obviously the US didn't recognize it as a country. If they did, there would have been no reason to fight. Did the CSA consider itself a separate country?

So Lincoln was killing US citizens to stabilize the country and maintain power?

Sounds like Saddam killing Kurds to me.

Posted by tangplay on 8/10/2017 2:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 8/10/2017 1:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 8/10/2017 12:54:00 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, until Mike actually responds to this

Bumpedy bump bump

Bumpedy bump bump bump bump bump

Posted by tangplay on 8/10/2017 2:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 2:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 8/10/2017 1:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 1:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 8/10/2017 12:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 12:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 12:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 12:09:00 PM (view original):
LOL. Never? Are you the modern day Nosterdumbass?

The South seceded and went to war over their right to own slaves. They weren't giving it up voluntarily any time soon.

No, you said "NEVER" not "any time soon".

Did you realize how ******* stupid that made you look and changed your stance?

Mike, you are the one who said that the south would have changed their outlook on slavery in less than 4 years, and then talked about how it took 20+ years to change your outlook on gay people.

Sigh....my outlook on gay people, according to the timeline, didn't take 20+ years. Unless you think SSM has been an issue for 20+ years. I went from "WTF is wrong with them?" to "So what?" practically overnight when I actually became an adult.. I went from "Why in the hell do they insist on marriage?" to "Who cares? Let them and the RR fight it out" in less than a year after SSM passed. So, truthfully, in my adult life, it might have been a few months.

Would slavery have ended in a few months? Unlikely. A few years? Maybe. Viewpoints change. Once the US law declassified slaves as property, they would have been viewed as people. Maybe lesser people like the Native Americans, and deserving of death, but still people.

IT WOULD NOT HAVE ENDED IN A FEW YEARS! WOMEN COULDN'T EVEN VOTE UNTIL 1920! BLACK PEOPLE HAD BARELY ANY RIGHTS UNTIL THE 60'S THEIR VIEWPOINTS OBVIOUSLY DID NOT CHANGE, RESEARCH ON RECONSTRUCTION

You have no idea. You simply don't. If you're all-knowing, please tell me who will win the World Series, Super Bowl and World Cup so I can lay down some wagers. Thanks in advance.

After the war ended, people in the south promised that they would do things to the black people so bad that it would be "worse than slavery", look it up. There is NO WAY that slavery would be banned in the south, especially because SLAVERY WAS THE SOUTH'S INCOME! The south would not have survived without slavery. That's one of the reasons they seceded. So even if your stupid idea that people change in 4 years is correct, it still would not happen

I don't see any winners in the games I requested. Therefore, I'm forced to believe you don't know ****. Speculative nonsense are the words I'm thinking of. Have a good day. I'm done with you.

still in your dream world mike?

As I said, done with you.

You are blocking the author of this post, tangplay.