Posted by MikeT23 on 8/11/2017 12:23:00 PM (view original):
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?

I don't know, guy-who-thinks-Lincoln-and-Saddam-are-equitable, do you even vaguely understand that you're a confederate apologist?

Posted by tecwrg on 8/11/2017 12:23:00 PM (view original):

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?

The difference is, I'm not going to sit here and try to blame someone else for the ****** things the US did the to Native Americans.

Here's the difference between us on the issue of slavery:

I'm not going to sit back and judge, some 157 years later, how someone LEGALLY made their living. I won't pretend the mindset for human rights was the same in 1860 as it is today. But, then again, I don't jump behind causes because it's the "cool" thing to do. I don't know anyone who was enslaved. I don't know anyone who knew anyone who was enslaved. I'm very far removed from the situation so I can look it at objectively. And, objectively, Lincoln jumped to killing Americans without blinking an eye. And that, sir, makes him a ****** leader.

America was built on human lives being lost. Fortunes were built on the same thing. America was not pretty 100 years ago. I'm not sure when we turned the corner but the poor, huddled masses have not always been welcome unless we had a way to exploit them for our benefit.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/11/2017 12:47:00 PM (view original):
Here's the difference between us on the issue of slavery:

I'm not going to sit back and judge, some 157 years later, how someone LEGALLY made their living. I won't pretend the mindset for human rights was the same in 1860 as it is today. But, then again, I don't jump behind causes because it's the "cool" thing to do. I don't know anyone who was enslaved. I don't know anyone who knew anyone who was enslaved. I'm very far removed from the situation so I can look it at objectively. And, objectively, Lincoln jumped to killing Americans without blinking an eye. And that, sir, makes him a ****** leader.

America was built on human lives being lost. Fortunes were built on the same thing. America was not pretty 100 years ago. I'm not sure when we turned the corner but the poor, huddled masses have not always been welcome unless we had a way to exploit them for our benefit.

But you are going to sit back and judge, 157 years later, Lincoln's decision to fight the war with the South.

Apologist.

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.

on what evidence does Mike think the south would have evolved and slavery would have ended? In the 1960s, one hundred years later, even though slavery was illegal, the majority of people in the south still viewed African-Americans as inferior human beings, if they viewed them as human beings at all. It took the National Guard to get the south to de-segregate their schools. If the issue had not been forced on them who knows what things would be like now?

Posted by tangplay on 8/11/2017 11:37:00 AM (view original):

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)

Mike plays Washington Generals to bad_luck's Globetrotters. It's more or less an exclusive arrangement. Don't feel bad that he blocked you. Feel good that bad_luck is the one reading, and responding to, Mike's amateur trollery; he does it for the rest of us (died for our sins, etc.). You don't want to be sucked into a gig like that.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/11/2017 1:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/11/2017 12:47:00 PM (view original):
Here's the difference between us on the issue of slavery:

I'm not going to sit back and judge, some 157 years later, how someone LEGALLY made their living. I won't pretend the mindset for human rights was the same in 1860 as it is today. But, then again, I don't jump behind causes because it's the "cool" thing to do. I don't know anyone who was enslaved. I don't know anyone who knew anyone who was enslaved. I'm very far removed from the situation so I can look it at objectively. And, objectively, Lincoln jumped to killing Americans without blinking an eye. And that, sir, makes him a ****** leader.

America was built on human lives being lost. Fortunes were built on the same thing. America was not pretty 100 years ago. I'm not sure when we turned the corner but the poor, huddled masses have not always been welcome unless we had a way to exploit them for our benefit.

But you are going to sit back and judge, 157 years later, Lincoln's decision to fight the war with the South.

Apologist.

The object of this thread is to determine the Best President Ever. IMO, Lincoln was a pretty ****** one because he started a war between Americans a mere month after taking office. His war cost 600,000 American lives.

Dumbass.

Posted by crazystengel on 8/11/2017 1:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 8/11/2017 11:37:00 AM (view original):

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)

Mike plays Washington Generals to bad_luck's Globetrotters. It's more or less an exclusive arrangement. Don't feel bad that he blocked you. Feel good that bad_luck is the one reading, and responding to, Mike's amateur trollery; he does it for the rest of us (died for our sins, etc.). You don't want to be sucked into a gig like that.

Fair enough.

Posted by wylie715 on 8/11/2017 1:13:00 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.

on what evidence does Mike think the south would have evolved and slavery would have ended? In the 1960s, one hundred years later, even though slavery was illegal, the majority of people in the south still viewed African-Americans as inferior human beings, if they viewed them as human beings at all. It took the National Guard to get the south to de-segregate their schools. If the issue had not been forced on them who knows what things would be like now?

Exactly my point.

Bah, Slavery wouldn't have ended until technology provided a better, more economically feasible solution than owning slaves. It would have happened... eventually. The South losing the Civil War accelerated that process, because they had to figure out a way to grow their crops without slave labor. Who knows how long it would've taken if they had been their own country....?

Considering a slave to be of less value than a white person was a rationalization for the slave owner, so they didn't feel guilty about "owning" someone. It developed over time to be a mindset in the South; if you're raised to believe that a group of people are inferior and deserve to be subjugated, you'll continue to think that until you're convinced otherwise.

Like Tec said, the western migration thought that about the Injuns, and those poor SOBs got shoved off their land.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/11/2017 1:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/11/2017 1:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/11/2017 12:47:00 PM (view original):
Here's the difference between us on the issue of slavery:

I'm not going to sit back and judge, some 157 years later, how someone LEGALLY made their living. I won't pretend the mindset for human rights was the same in 1860 as it is today. But, then again, I don't jump behind causes because it's the "cool" thing to do. I don't know anyone who was enslaved. I don't know anyone who knew anyone who was enslaved. I'm very far removed from the situation so I can look it at objectively. And, objectively, Lincoln jumped to killing Americans without blinking an eye. And that, sir, makes him a ****** leader.

America was built on human lives being lost. Fortunes were built on the same thing. America was not pretty 100 years ago. I'm not sure when we turned the corner but the poor, huddled masses have not always been welcome unless we had a way to exploit them for our benefit.

But you are going to sit back and judge, 157 years later, Lincoln's decision to fight the war with the South.

Apologist.

The object of this thread is to determine the Best President Ever. IMO, Lincoln was a pretty ****** one because he started a war between Americans a mere month after taking office. His war cost 600,000 American lives.

Dumbass.

If you want to start a "Was slavery bad?" thread, I guess we could discuss it. But, if you want to save time, here you go:

Of course, it was terrible. You can't force other human beings to work for you and abuse them along the way. That said, the United States of America did NOT make it illegal until 1865. It's kind of hard to be mad at people who used the US laws to make a living. Child labor used to be thing too. Working conditions in the US were putrid(Triangle Shirt Fire) until OSHA came along. We were, and still are, a developing country. Of course, those $170 sneakers you're wearing were probably made in an India sweatshop by a 9 year old working for 27 cents a day. I wouldn't jump on too high a horse on how "developed" we are. The fall will hurt worse.

Posted by toddcommish on 8/11/2017 1:23:00 PM (view original):
Bah, Slavery wouldn't have ended until technology provided a better, more economically feasible solution than owning slaves. It would have happened... eventually. The South losing the Civil War accelerated that process, because they had to figure out a way to grow their crops without slave labor. Who knows how long it would've taken if they had been their own country....?

Considering a slave to be of less value than a white person was a rationalization for the slave owner, so they didn't feel guilty about "owning" someone. It developed over time to be a mindset in the South; if you're raised to believe that a group of people are inferior and deserve to be subjugated, you'll continue to think that until you're convinced otherwise.

Like Tec said, the western migration thought that about the Injuns, and those poor SOBs got shoved off their land.

You mean the ones the US government didn't kill? Because there were plenty that didn't get to move to a reservation.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/11/2017 1:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/11/2017 1:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/11/2017 1:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/11/2017 12:47:00 PM (view original):
Here's the difference between us on the issue of slavery:

I'm not going to sit back and judge, some 157 years later, how someone LEGALLY made their living. I won't pretend the mindset for human rights was the same in 1860 as it is today. But, then again, I don't jump behind causes because it's the "cool" thing to do. I don't know anyone who was enslaved. I don't know anyone who knew anyone who was enslaved. I'm very far removed from the situation so I can look it at objectively. And, objectively, Lincoln jumped to killing Americans without blinking an eye. And that, sir, makes him a ****** leader.

America was built on human lives being lost. Fortunes were built on the same thing. America was not pretty 100 years ago. I'm not sure when we turned the corner but the poor, huddled masses have not always been welcome unless we had a way to exploit them for our benefit.

But you are going to sit back and judge, 157 years later, Lincoln's decision to fight the war with the South.

Apologist.

The object of this thread is to determine the Best President Ever. IMO, Lincoln was a pretty ****** one because he started a war between Americans a mere month after taking office. His war cost 600,000 American lives.

Dumbass.

If you want to start a "Was slavery bad?" thread, I guess we could discuss it. But, if you want to save time, here you go:

Of course, it was terrible. You can't force other human beings to work for you and abuse them along the way. That said, the United States of America did NOT make it illegal until 1865. It's kind of hard to be mad at people who used the US laws to make a living. Child labor used to be thing too. Working conditions in the US were putrid(Triangle Shirt Fire) until OSHA came along. We were, and still are, a developing country. Of course, those $170 sneakers you're wearing were probably made in an India sweatshop by a 9 year old working for 27 cents a day. I wouldn't jump on too high a horse on how "developed" we are. The fall will hurt worse.

THERE WAS A REASON LINCOLN DIDN'T OUTLAW SLAVERY UNTIL 1865 DUMB@$$

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/11/2017 1:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/11/2017 1:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/11/2017 12:47:00 PM (view original):
Here's the difference between us on the issue of slavery:

I'm not going to sit back and judge, some 157 years later, how someone LEGALLY made their living. I won't pretend the mindset for human rights was the same in 1860 as it is today. But, then again, I don't jump behind causes because it's the "cool" thing to do. I don't know anyone who was enslaved. I don't know anyone who knew anyone who was enslaved. I'm very far removed from the situation so I can look it at objectively. And, objectively, Lincoln jumped to killing Americans without blinking an eye. And that, sir, makes him a ****** leader.

America was built on human lives being lost. Fortunes were built on the same thing. America was not pretty 100 years ago. I'm not sure when we turned the corner but the poor, huddled masses have not always been welcome unless we had a way to exploit them for our benefit.

But you are going to sit back and judge, 157 years later, Lincoln's decision to fight the war with the South.

Apologist.

The object of this thread is to determine the Best President Ever. IMO, Lincoln was a pretty ****** one because he started a war between Americans a mere month after taking office. His war cost 600,000 American lives.

Dumbass.

Or, he's a great one because he brought the country back together after the South seceded and freed 4 million slaves at the same time.

Apologist.