Posted by MikeT23 on 8/15/2017 10:22:00 AM (view original):

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.

Ooh oooh ooooh, I know what was in Lincoln's head.

A lead slug.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/15/2017 10:46:00 AM (view original):

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.

I'm not sure that answers the question. I'm sure it doesn't. How does a statue that 99.9% of the world walks past and never notices coming down benefit everyone?

Posted by toddcommish on 8/15/2017 11:01:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/15/2017 10:22:00 AM (view original):

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.

Ooh oooh ooooh, I know what was in Lincoln's head.

A lead slug.

That was AFTER the Civil War.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/15/2017 11:01:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/15/2017 10:46:00 AM (view original):

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.

I'm not sure that answers the question. I'm sure it doesn't. How does a statue that 99.9% of the world walks past and never notices coming down benefit everyone?

Taking down memorials to treasonous losers doesn't benefit everyone?

Taking down (and putting up) statues is a ceremonial gesture. They don't BENEFIT anyone... except maybe pigeons.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/15/2017 11:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/15/2017 11:01:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/15/2017 10:46:00 AM (view original):

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.

I'm not sure that answers the question. I'm sure it doesn't. How does a statue that 99.9% of the world walks past and never notices coming down benefit everyone?

Taking down memorials to treasonous losers doesn't benefit everyone?

Some would call them "historical figures".

But, whichever way you want to go, 99.9% of the world doesn't care.

That said, since we're pulling down statues, will slave owner George Washington be next?

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/15/2017 11:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/15/2017 11:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/15/2017 11:01:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/15/2017 10:46:00 AM (view original):

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.

I'm not sure that answers the question. I'm sure it doesn't. How does a statue that 99.9% of the world walks past and never notices coming down benefit everyone?

Taking down memorials to treasonous losers doesn't benefit everyone?

Some would call them "historical figures".

But, whichever way you want to go, 99.9% of the world doesn't care.

That said, since we're pulling down statues, will slave owner George Washington be next?

Hitler was a historical figure. Maybe we should put statues up of him?


They are "historical" because they did a bad thing. Like Hitler. Or your buddy Saddam.

Are you sure it's a bad thing? Soldiers fight who they're told to fight. Did you spit on Vietnam vets as a child because you didn't like their cause?

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/15/2017 11:37:00 AM (view original):
Are you sure it's a bad thing? Soldiers fight who they're told to fight. Did you spit on Vietnam vets as a child because you didn't like their cause?

Hmmm as far as I know, Vietnam vets didn't fight AGAINST America.

Idiot.

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.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/15/2017 11:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/15/2017 11:37:00 AM (view original):
Are you sure it's a bad thing? Soldiers fight who they're told to fight. Did you spit on Vietnam vets as a child because you didn't like their cause?

Hmmm as far as I know, Vietnam vets didn't fight AGAINST America.

Idiot.

So we've settled on Lincoln forcing Americans to kill other Americans.

Glad that's cleared up.

600,000+ Americans died because of Lincoln. Super Great POTUS.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/15/2017 11:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/15/2017 11:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/15/2017 11:37:00 AM (view original):
Are you sure it's a bad thing? Soldiers fight who they're told to fight. Did you spit on Vietnam vets as a child because you didn't like their cause?

Hmmm as far as I know, Vietnam vets didn't fight AGAINST America.

Idiot.

So we've settled on Lincoln forcing Americans to kill other Americans.

Glad that's cleared up.

600,000+ Americans died because of Lincoln. Super Great POTUS.

LOL

600,000 people died in the civil war because the south chose to fight to protect its ability to own people. All of the blame lies at the feet of the cousin-*******.

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

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.

In downtown Tucson there is a statue of Pancho Villa on his horse. Should it be pulled down because he "killed" Americans? I can assure you that there are a number of Tucson citizens who DO care very much about it's historical significance. History is supposed to inform us. Pulling down historical monuments in a fit of childish mob-like (peer-pressured!) behavior is not "patriotic" in any way. It's illegal, and stupid beyond belief!! Just like burning down your own neighborhood in some protest against authority. Those that think that behavior commendable have publicly certified themselves morons!