Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 2:13:00 PM (view original):

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.

you saying that the south would have ended slavery in 4 years is WAYYYY more speculative than my statement.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 2:11:00 PM (view original):
So Lincoln was killing US citizens to stabilize the country and maintain power?

Sounds like Saddam killing Kurds to me.

Who fired the first shots?

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 2:14:00 PM (view original):
As I said, done with you.

You are blocking the author of this post, tangplay.

? GUYS, MIKE HAS GIVEN UP WITHOUT RESPONDING TO MY COMMENT THAT I KEEP BUMPING! (also Patriots, Dodgers, and germany to be safe)

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)

Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 2:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 2:11:00 PM (view original):
So Lincoln was killing US citizens to stabilize the country and maintain power?

Sounds like Saddam killing Kurds to me.

Who fired the first shots?

When an aggressor is at your door, you take measures to ensure your safety. Self-preservation.

Lincoln was attempting to resupply, with men, goods and ammo, a fort blocking the harbor. The soldiers were free to leave that unfinished fort that I think they took because it was in a more strategic position.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/8/2017 3:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/8/2017 2:16:00 PM (view original):
By sending a warship to attempt to take an unfinished fort, he orchestrated a war. Let's not be ridiculous and think we'd still have slaves today if not for the Civil War. Perhaps a war was necessary but it wasn't necessary that day.

I won't bother with a history lesson, I might screw it up, but troops abandoned Fort Moultrie in Dec 1860 and moved to unfinished Fort Sumter. There was no direct order from DC to do this. The commanding officer at FM did it on his own. The SC Govt asked the garrison to abandon the unfinished fort. They did not. Lincoln sent a ship to resupply/increase the number of Union troops. That ship was turned away with shots over it's bow. 3 months later, Lincoln sent a fleet of ships to attempt to do the same. Civil War began.

It was a really stupid way to start killing Americans. Again, maybe a war would have been necessary to end slavery(not the ONLY issue but, as I said, I'm not giving a history lesson on States' rights or ridiculous tariffs from DC that crushed the South's economy) but starting it over meaningless, incomplete fort was dumb.

Slavery was the issue. It's why South Carolina seceded. States' rights to own people.

Good Lord. This again?

I take it you've never read a history book to understand what the Civil War was about, because you're still swinging and missing.

Guys, stop responding to mike so he has to respond to me, because he has literally no answer

BL likes to simplify things. One reason, one number, one whatever. He doesn't do well with complex issues.

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.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 2:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 2:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 2:11:00 PM (view original):
So Lincoln was killing US citizens to stabilize the country and maintain power?

Sounds like Saddam killing Kurds to me.

Who fired the first shots?

When an aggressor is at your door, you take measures to ensure your safety. Self-preservation.

Lincoln was attempting to resupply, with men, goods and ammo, a fort blocking the harbor. The soldiers were free to leave that unfinished fort that I think they took because it was in a more strategic position.

Did the Kurds attack Saddam? Did the Kurds try to leave Iraq and start a new country? Did the Kurds refuse to free 4 million people they owned as slaves?

No. No. No.

Hmmm, seems like the two situations are not at all alike.

The South fired the first shots of the war after seceding from the US because they didn't want to give up their slaves. The South is 100% to blame for the Civil War and deserves every joke about how they are still backwards, stupid, racist rednecks.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/10/2017 2:20:00 PM (view original):
BL likes to simplify things. One reason, one number, one whatever. He doesn't do well with complex issues.

"You hypocrite! First remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye."

Posted by tecwrg on 8/10/2017 2:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/8/2017 3:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/8/2017 2:16:00 PM (view original):
By sending a warship to attempt to take an unfinished fort, he orchestrated a war. Let's not be ridiculous and think we'd still have slaves today if not for the Civil War. Perhaps a war was necessary but it wasn't necessary that day.

I won't bother with a history lesson, I might screw it up, but troops abandoned Fort Moultrie in Dec 1860 and moved to unfinished Fort Sumter. There was no direct order from DC to do this. The commanding officer at FM did it on his own. The SC Govt asked the garrison to abandon the unfinished fort. They did not. Lincoln sent a ship to resupply/increase the number of Union troops. That ship was turned away with shots over it's bow. 3 months later, Lincoln sent a fleet of ships to attempt to do the same. Civil War began.

It was a really stupid way to start killing Americans. Again, maybe a war would have been necessary to end slavery(not the ONLY issue but, as I said, I'm not giving a history lesson on States' rights or ridiculous tariffs from DC that crushed the South's economy) but starting it over meaningless, incomplete fort was dumb.

Slavery was the issue. It's why South Carolina seceded. States' rights to own people.

Good Lord. This again?

I take it you've never read a history book to understand what the Civil War was about, because you're still swinging and missing.

Educate me. Why did South Carolina secede?

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.

bad_luck, Mike blocked me because he couldn't respond to me, can you post what I have been trying to get Mike to reply to this whole time, so that he can actually respond?

Posted by bad_luck on 8/10/2017 2:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 8/10/2017 2:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/8/2017 3:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/8/2017 2:16:00 PM (view original):
By sending a warship to attempt to take an unfinished fort, he orchestrated a war. Let's not be ridiculous and think we'd still have slaves today if not for the Civil War. Perhaps a war was necessary but it wasn't necessary that day.

I won't bother with a history lesson, I might screw it up, but troops abandoned Fort Moultrie in Dec 1860 and moved to unfinished Fort Sumter. There was no direct order from DC to do this. The commanding officer at FM did it on his own. The SC Govt asked the garrison to abandon the unfinished fort. They did not. Lincoln sent a ship to resupply/increase the number of Union troops. That ship was turned away with shots over it's bow. 3 months later, Lincoln sent a fleet of ships to attempt to do the same. Civil War began.

It was a really stupid way to start killing Americans. Again, maybe a war would have been necessary to end slavery(not the ONLY issue but, as I said, I'm not giving a history lesson on States' rights or ridiculous tariffs from DC that crushed the South's economy) but starting it over meaningless, incomplete fort was dumb.

Slavery was the issue. It's why South Carolina seceded. States' rights to own people.

Good Lord. This again?

I take it you've never read a history book to understand what the Civil War was about, because you're still swinging and missing.

Educate me. Why did South Carolina secede?

Do you have access to the internet? Almost all of the states that seceded formally listed their reasons. You can probably find them.