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".

Not really.

My objective was to point out that Lincoln had determined bloodshed over negotiation in how he was going to deal with secession BEFORE he took office. Most people ignore the fact that he declared war on his own people, that over 600,000+ Americans died in that war and, technically, the end result was reclassifying property.

I fully recognize that the term "property" when referring to slaves(people after 1865) is inflammatory. I don't mind stirring the pot on this largely liberal website.

When all is said and done, I agree that slavery was an abomination. It had to end for America to become America(as I stated earlier). War may have been necessary but Lincoln considered nothing else. He had decided what he was going to do before taking office. Possibly before being elected. That is not a great leader. And that's what this thread is about. Best POTUS ever. It wasn't Lincoln. He might have been the worst.

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.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/15/2017 9:48:00 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".

Not really.

My objective was to point out that Lincoln had determined bloodshed over negotiation in how he was going to deal with secession BEFORE he took office. Most people ignore the fact that he declared war on his own people, that over 600,000+ Americans died in that war and, technically, the end result was reclassifying property.

I fully recognize that the term "property" when referring to slaves(people after 1865) is inflammatory. I don't mind stirring the pot on this largely liberal website.

When all is said and done, I agree that slavery was an abomination. It had to end for America to become America(as I stated earlier). War may have been necessary but Lincoln considered nothing else. He had decided what he was going to do before taking office. Possibly before being elected. That is not a great leader. And that's what this thread is about. Best POTUS ever. It wasn't Lincoln. He might have been the worst.

How upset does it make you seeing all the confederate participation trophies being torn down?

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?

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.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/15/2017 9:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/15/2017 9:48:00 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".

Not really.

My objective was to point out that Lincoln had determined bloodshed over negotiation in how he was going to deal with secession BEFORE he took office. Most people ignore the fact that he declared war on his own people, that over 600,000+ Americans died in that war and, technically, the end result was reclassifying property.

I fully recognize that the term "property" when referring to slaves(people after 1865) is inflammatory. I don't mind stirring the pot on this largely liberal website.

When all is said and done, I agree that slavery was an abomination. It had to end for America to become America(as I stated earlier). War may have been necessary but Lincoln considered nothing else. He had decided what he was going to do before taking office. Possibly before being elected. That is not a great leader. And that's what this thread is about. Best POTUS ever. It wasn't Lincoln. He might have been the worst.

How upset does it make you seeing all the confederate participation trophies being torn down?

It's here in one of these threads on Saturday.

"It's a statue. Who gives a **** about a statue?"

But I did see a dude spit and stomp on one that came down. Pretty funny. I recall that happening to Saddam statues. Nice to know we're more educated and civilized than 3rd world countries.

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)

Posted by Benis on 8/15/2017 8:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 8/14/2017 3:46:00 PM (view original):

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

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/14/2017 1:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/14/2017 1:05:00 PM (view original):
I think Mike watched Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter too many times. Reality seems just outside his grasp.

Actually just fascinated that a country could tear itself apart when I was relatively young. Read a lot on the CW, specifically, and American History in general. It's not as simple as most think it is.

Lincoln freed slaves is the consensus. But wrong.

Freedom for the slaves was an outcome that resulted from the civil war though, so the consensus is correct.

But Lincoln didn't free them. Nor did he want to.

Facts suck when they don't support your argument, don't they?

Mike said this on on Page 2 of this thread

"We know Lincoln wanted to end slavery. SC gave him reason to start a war. He took it. That's "orchestration"."

Tec says Lincoln didn't want to end Slavery while Mike says he did. Which is it guys?

Subtle difference. Lincoln was morally opposed to slavery, and in that respect, he wanted to see it eventually end.

But Lincoln was also a politician. He knew that abolishing slavery would have been disastrous to the southern economy, and that's a place where Candidate Lincoln didn't want to go. He also knew that doing so would also push the border states over to side with the south, and would have virtually guaranteed that the Union would lose a possibly eventual war. Another place where he didn't want to go.

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.

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

Posted by bad_luck on 8/15/2017 9:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/15/2017 9:48:00 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".

Not really.

My objective was to point out that Lincoln had determined bloodshed over negotiation in how he was going to deal with secession BEFORE he took office. Most people ignore the fact that he declared war on his own people, that over 600,000+ Americans died in that war and, technically, the end result was reclassifying property.

I fully recognize that the term "property" when referring to slaves(people after 1865) is inflammatory. I don't mind stirring the pot on this largely liberal website.

When all is said and done, I agree that slavery was an abomination. It had to end for America to become America(as I stated earlier). War may have been necessary but Lincoln considered nothing else. He had decided what he was going to do before taking office. Possibly before being elected. That is not a great leader. And that's what this thread is about. Best POTUS ever. It wasn't Lincoln. He might have been the worst.

How upset does it make you seeing all the confederate participation trophies being torn down?

It's here in one of these threads on Saturday.

"It's a statue. Who gives a **** about a statue?"

But I did see a dude spit and stomp on one that came down. Pretty funny. I recall that happening to Saddam statues. Nice to know we're more educated and civilized than 3rd world countries.

At least the protesters have the correct counterpart for the saddam analogy.

More we than we can say about you.

Posted by tecwrg on 8/15/2017 10:14:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/15/2017 8:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 8/14/2017 3:46:00 PM (view original):

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

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/14/2017 1:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/14/2017 1:05:00 PM (view original):
I think Mike watched Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter too many times. Reality seems just outside his grasp.

Actually just fascinated that a country could tear itself apart when I was relatively young. Read a lot on the CW, specifically, and American History in general. It's not as simple as most think it is.

Lincoln freed slaves is the consensus. But wrong.

Freedom for the slaves was an outcome that resulted from the civil war though, so the consensus is correct.

But Lincoln didn't free them. Nor did he want to.

Facts suck when they don't support your argument, don't they?

Mike said this on on Page 2 of this thread

"We know Lincoln wanted to end slavery. SC gave him reason to start a war. He took it. That's "orchestration"."

Tec says Lincoln didn't want to end Slavery while Mike says he did. Which is it guys?

Subtle difference. Lincoln was morally opposed to slavery, and in that respect, he wanted to see it eventually end.

But Lincoln was also a politician. He knew that abolishing slavery would have been disastrous to the southern economy, and that's a place where Candidate Lincoln didn't want to go. He also knew that doing so would also push the border states over to side with the south, and would have virtually guaranteed that the Union would lose a possibly eventual war. Another place where he didn't want to go.

Similar to what I said.

Meh, not so much. We don't KNOW what was in Lincoln's head. His lifelong objection to slavery would lead one to believe he would like to end it or wouldn't mind seeing it ended. Politically speaking, at the time of the elections, it would have been detrimental to say "I want to end slavery." However, after the election, it didn't take 7 Southern states to secede over expected economic doom(which includes the use of slaves). It wasn't just Lincoln, the Republican party won overwhelmingly, but the South knew something was afoot. Not being privy to "behind closed doors" discussions, I think they felt Congress/Lincoln would push to abolish slavery and continue the tariffs. That, effectively, would have destroyed Southern economy to the benefit of the North.

Do I KNOW Lincoln wanted to end slavery BEFORE taking office? No, I do not. But many believe he did. I suspect it was on his agenda. Secession gave him reason to begin the process without stating it.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/15/2017 10:21:00 AM (view original):

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

Posted by bad_luck on 8/15/2017 9:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/15/2017 9:48:00 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".

Not really.

My objective was to point out that Lincoln had determined bloodshed over negotiation in how he was going to deal with secession BEFORE he took office. Most people ignore the fact that he declared war on his own people, that over 600,000+ Americans died in that war and, technically, the end result was reclassifying property.

I fully recognize that the term "property" when referring to slaves(people after 1865) is inflammatory. I don't mind stirring the pot on this largely liberal website.

When all is said and done, I agree that slavery was an abomination. It had to end for America to become America(as I stated earlier). War may have been necessary but Lincoln considered nothing else. He had decided what he was going to do before taking office. Possibly before being elected. That is not a great leader. And that's what this thread is about. Best POTUS ever. It wasn't Lincoln. He might have been the worst.

How upset does it make you seeing all the confederate participation trophies being torn down?

It's here in one of these threads on Saturday.

"It's a statue. Who gives a **** about a statue?"

But I did see a dude spit and stomp on one that came down. Pretty funny. I recall that happening to Saddam statues. Nice to know we're more educated and civilized than 3rd world countries.

At least the protesters have the correct counterpart for the saddam analogy.

More we than we can say about you.

They are destroying public property. They should probably be arrested.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/15/2017 10:23:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/15/2017 10:21:00 AM (view original):

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

Posted by bad_luck on 8/15/2017 9:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/15/2017 9:48:00 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".

Not really.

My objective was to point out that Lincoln had determined bloodshed over negotiation in how he was going to deal with secession BEFORE he took office. Most people ignore the fact that he declared war on his own people, that over 600,000+ Americans died in that war and, technically, the end result was reclassifying property.

I fully recognize that the term "property" when referring to slaves(people after 1865) is inflammatory. I don't mind stirring the pot on this largely liberal website.

When all is said and done, I agree that slavery was an abomination. It had to end for America to become America(as I stated earlier). War may have been necessary but Lincoln considered nothing else. He had decided what he was going to do before taking office. Possibly before being elected. That is not a great leader. And that's what this thread is about. Best POTUS ever. It wasn't Lincoln. He might have been the worst.

How upset does it make you seeing all the confederate participation trophies being torn down?

It's here in one of these threads on Saturday.

"It's a statue. Who gives a **** about a statue?"

But I did see a dude spit and stomp on one that came down. Pretty funny. I recall that happening to Saddam statues. Nice to know we're more educated and civilized than 3rd world countries.

At least the protesters have the correct counterpart for the saddam analogy.

More we than we can say about you.

They are destroying public property. They should probably be arrested.

It's technically illegal, but everyone is benefitting, so they'll probably avoid jail time.

It's a statue. My guess is the only people who see them are people who specifically want to see them. How does that benefit everyone?

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/15/2017 10:38:00 AM (view original):
It's a statue. My guess is the only people who see them are people who specifically want to see them. How does that benefit everyone?

It's dumb to memorialize treasonous losers.