Wow! This is the best Prez ever thread----and we have two Jewish men arguing about Chump (?) or politics or ??, and calling each other names........

Why? It's like the Civil War all over again except this time we appear to be arguing over the POTUS and whether (or not) he's an unfit immoral charlatan about to ruin the Country and (possibly) the planet----or some sort of what?........ misunderstood genius business tycoon out to save the Country from what?........ our idealistic and outdated moral governing principles???

All due to the age of internet/virtual reality.
Hell, isn't it how Chump got famous......... being a virtual business tycoon on TV. Too bad his REAL Life record doesn't reflect that kind of success!

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/16/2017 10:12:00 AM (view original):
Hmmmmm.....I think you were. Don't make me dig it up.

Nope I wasn't.

And yeah I'm easily amused. These are internet message boards. If they don't amuse you then what are you doing here?

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/16/2017 11:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/13/2017 6:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/13/2017 6:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/13/2017 5:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/13/2017 5:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/13/2017 3:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/13/2017 1:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/13/2017 11:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/13/2017 11:13:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 9:40:00 AM (view original):
My argument does not hinge on owning people. It hinges on rushing into a war that kills 600,000+ Americans over property.

Easily the most ignorant thing I've read on this site. And I've seen quite a bit.

Did you know that the US Government classified slaves as property until 1865? Yep, you could buy slaves just like you buy a cheeseburger today. Do you know when Lincoln started the Civil War?

I'm a little disturbed that you're missing the entire point.

Slavary was legal. Yes.

But it was IMMORAL. It was wrong and needed to end immediately.

Who said it wasn't immoral?

You obviously haven't bothered to read much of this thread. The US Government allowed the purchase of slaves. When you purchase something, it is your property. I'm not going to judge to morality of people 160+ years ago with today's standards.

I only read some of your dribble and I'm not going to read the other 10 pages of it.

And who said anything about today's standards? It was already viewed as immoral by the vast majority of the civilized world in the 19th century. USA's "peers" were already abolishing slavery.

your analogy of the govt taking away your car is bullshit and ignorant.

Property is property, moron.

And the USA didn't abolish slavery until 1865. Was the USA not in the civilized world?

FWIW, I've already said we were pretty barbaric back then. Native Americans agree.

Some northern states already abolished it WAY before 1865 dipshiit.

The North (and Lincoln) didn't view slaves as property. They were human beings. So Lincoln didn't "start a war that killed 600,000 Americans over property" you narrow minded piece of ****.

Here we go. You weren't offended. You were UPSET.

How mad are you at Lincoln for referring to slaves as property? Is he now a narrow-minded piece of ****?

BENIS!!!!?!?!?!!!??!?!!????!!

Posted by RCBracco on 8/16/2017 10:32:00 AM (view original):
Make me you piece of ****

HAHAHA best response I've seen all day

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/16/2017 12:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/16/2017 11:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/13/2017 6:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/13/2017 6:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/13/2017 5:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/13/2017 5:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/13/2017 3:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/13/2017 1:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/13/2017 11:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/13/2017 11:13:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/9/2017 9:40:00 AM (view original):
My argument does not hinge on owning people. It hinges on rushing into a war that kills 600,000+ Americans over property.

Easily the most ignorant thing I've read on this site. And I've seen quite a bit.

Did you know that the US Government classified slaves as property until 1865? Yep, you could buy slaves just like you buy a cheeseburger today. Do you know when Lincoln started the Civil War?

I'm a little disturbed that you're missing the entire point.

Slavary was legal. Yes.

But it was IMMORAL. It was wrong and needed to end immediately.

Who said it wasn't immoral?

You obviously haven't bothered to read much of this thread. The US Government allowed the purchase of slaves. When you purchase something, it is your property. I'm not going to judge to morality of people 160+ years ago with today's standards.

I only read some of your dribble and I'm not going to read the other 10 pages of it.

And who said anything about today's standards? It was already viewed as immoral by the vast majority of the civilized world in the 19th century. USA's "peers" were already abolishing slavery.

your analogy of the govt taking away your car is bullshit and ignorant.

Property is property, moron.

And the USA didn't abolish slavery until 1865. Was the USA not in the civilized world?

FWIW, I've already said we were pretty barbaric back then. Native Americans agree.

Some northern states already abolished it WAY before 1865 dipshiit.

The North (and Lincoln) didn't view slaves as property. They were human beings. So Lincoln didn't "start a war that killed 600,000 Americans over property" you narrow minded piece of ****.

Here we go. You weren't offended. You were UPSET.

How mad are you at Lincoln for referring to slaves as property? Is he now a narrow-minded piece of ****?

BENIS!!!!?!?!?!!!??!?!!????!!

I took a short cut. Sue me.

LOL. As a relative newcomer to the political arguments, you've picked up "ignore the dumbass **** I said because it now hurts my agenda" that the libs use regularly pretty quickly.

So, does referring to slaves as property make one a narrow-minded piece of **** or not? It's a yes/no question.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/16/2017 12:32:00 PM (view original):
LOL. As a relative newcomer to the political arguments, you've picked up "ignore the dumbass **** I said because it now hurts my agenda" that the libs use regularly pretty quickly.

So, does referring to slaves as property make one a narrow-minded piece of **** or not? It's a yes/no question.

Okay fine. I'll argue with you.

Here's the point. I've said it many, many times but you're stubborn and dense.

You - in 2017- saying that Lincoln killed 600,000 Americans over property is not the same as Lincoln saying -in 1861- that he won't take away property from the Southern states in his inaugural address. You- as a man living in 2017- have the benefit of hindsight and have a more civilized view of people and the world (I hope).

Or go with the shortcut excuse that you've provided. Either works.

Posted by Benis on 8/16/2017 12:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/16/2017 12:32:00 PM (view original):
LOL. As a relative newcomer to the political arguments, you've picked up "ignore the dumbass **** I said because it now hurts my agenda" that the libs use regularly pretty quickly.

So, does referring to slaves as property make one a narrow-minded piece of **** or not? It's a yes/no question.

Okay fine. I'll argue with you.

Here's the point. I've said it many, many times but you're stubborn and dense.

You - in 2017- saying that Lincoln killed 600,000 Americans over property is not the same as Lincoln saying -in 1861- that he won't take away property from the Southern states in his inaugural address. You- as a man living in 2017- have the benefit of hindsight and have a more civilized view of people and the world (I hope).

I've said, many times, that I don't like applying my 2017 viewpoint to 1861 standards. What we see/feel today is not what they saw/felt then. So condemning slave owners in 1861 for a legal practice is just plain *** stupid. The US Government, and Lincoln-god, both viewed slaves as property. So condemning them for considering slaves property is equally stupid. So, when I say slaves were property, I'm saying that was the goddam law of the land.

Is there something the bleeding heart left does not understand about that?

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/16/2017 12:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/16/2017 12:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/16/2017 12:32:00 PM (view original):
LOL. As a relative newcomer to the political arguments, you've picked up "ignore the dumbass **** I said because it now hurts my agenda" that the libs use regularly pretty quickly.

So, does referring to slaves as property make one a narrow-minded piece of **** or not? It's a yes/no question.

Okay fine. I'll argue with you.

Here's the point. I've said it many, many times but you're stubborn and dense.

You - in 2017- saying that Lincoln killed 600,000 Americans over property is not the same as Lincoln saying -in 1861- that he won't take away property from the Southern states in his inaugural address. You- as a man living in 2017- have the benefit of hindsight and have a more civilized view of people and the world (I hope).

I've said, many times, that I don't like applying my 2017 viewpoint to 1861 standards. What we see/feel today is not what they saw/felt then. So condemning slave owners in 1861 for a legal practice is just plain *** stupid. The US Government, and Lincoln-god, both viewed slaves as property. So condemning them for considering slaves property is equally stupid. So, when I say slaves were property, I'm saying that was the goddam law of the land.

Is there something the bleeding heart left does not understand about that?

Wait, wasn't a big part of your argument earlier in this thread that the South would have given up slavery voluntarily soon as the rest of the world already had because everyone knew that slavery was wrong?

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/16/2017 12:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/16/2017 12:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/16/2017 12:32:00 PM (view original):
LOL. As a relative newcomer to the political arguments, you've picked up "ignore the dumbass **** I said because it now hurts my agenda" that the libs use regularly pretty quickly.

So, does referring to slaves as property make one a narrow-minded piece of **** or not? It's a yes/no question.

Okay fine. I'll argue with you.

Here's the point. I've said it many, many times but you're stubborn and dense.

You - in 2017- saying that Lincoln killed 600,000 Americans over property is not the same as Lincoln saying -in 1861- that he won't take away property from the Southern states in his inaugural address. You- as a man living in 2017- have the benefit of hindsight and have a more civilized view of people and the world (I hope).

I've said, many times, that I don't like applying my 2017 viewpoint to 1861 standards. What we see/feel today is not what they saw/felt then. So condemning slave owners in 1861 for a legal practice is just plain *** stupid. The US Government, and Lincoln-god, both viewed slaves as property. So condemning them for considering slaves property is equally stupid. So, when I say slaves were property, I'm saying that was the goddam law of the land.

Is there something the bleeding heart left does not understand about that?

So Lincoln went to war over property is what you've said. Slaves were considered property by both sides. So the country went to war because of property is what you're saying.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/16/2017 12:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/16/2017 12:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/16/2017 12:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/16/2017 12:32:00 PM (view original):
LOL. As a relative newcomer to the political arguments, you've picked up "ignore the dumbass **** I said because it now hurts my agenda" that the libs use regularly pretty quickly.

So, does referring to slaves as property make one a narrow-minded piece of **** or not? It's a yes/no question.

Okay fine. I'll argue with you.

Here's the point. I've said it many, many times but you're stubborn and dense.

You - in 2017- saying that Lincoln killed 600,000 Americans over property is not the same as Lincoln saying -in 1861- that he won't take away property from the Southern states in his inaugural address. You- as a man living in 2017- have the benefit of hindsight and have a more civilized view of people and the world (I hope).

I've said, many times, that I don't like applying my 2017 viewpoint to 1861 standards. What we see/feel today is not what they saw/felt then. So condemning slave owners in 1861 for a legal practice is just plain *** stupid. The US Government, and Lincoln-god, both viewed slaves as property. So condemning them for considering slaves property is equally stupid. So, when I say slaves were property, I'm saying that was the goddam law of the land.

Is there something the bleeding heart left does not understand about that?

Wait, wasn't a big part of your argument earlier in this thread that the South would have given up slavery voluntarily soon as the rest of the world already had because everyone knew that slavery was wrong?

Britain abolished slavery in 1888. If you'd have opened the link I provided, you'd have educated yourself to that fact.

Although I'm not sure what your point is. Slavery was legal in the US in 1861. Math says that was 27 years before Britain abolished slavery.

Posted by Benis on 8/16/2017 1:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/16/2017 12:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/16/2017 12:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/16/2017 12:32:00 PM (view original):
LOL. As a relative newcomer to the political arguments, you've picked up "ignore the dumbass **** I said because it now hurts my agenda" that the libs use regularly pretty quickly.

So, does referring to slaves as property make one a narrow-minded piece of **** or not? It's a yes/no question.

Okay fine. I'll argue with you.

Here's the point. I've said it many, many times but you're stubborn and dense.

You - in 2017- saying that Lincoln killed 600,000 Americans over property is not the same as Lincoln saying -in 1861- that he won't take away property from the Southern states in his inaugural address. You- as a man living in 2017- have the benefit of hindsight and have a more civilized view of people and the world (I hope).

I've said, many times, that I don't like applying my 2017 viewpoint to 1861 standards. What we see/feel today is not what they saw/felt then. So condemning slave owners in 1861 for a legal practice is just plain *** stupid. The US Government, and Lincoln-god, both viewed slaves as property. So condemning them for considering slaves property is equally stupid. So, when I say slaves were property, I'm saying that was the goddam law of the land.

Is there something the bleeding heart left does not understand about that?

So Lincoln went to war over property is what you've said. Slaves were considered property by both sides. So the country went to war because of property is what you're saying.

Since there's no question mark, it seems we're in agreement.

Good talk.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/14/2017 4:52:00 PM (view original):
In the 19th century most nations in the world abolished slavery by peaceful means. The British freed all the slaves in their empire in six years, completing the process in 1840. Most Latin American nations emancipated all their slaves between 1813 and 1854, and the gradual liberation of slaves in Brazil was completed in 1888. The only other violent emancipation of slaves was the slave uprising in Haiti in 1794.

There it is. I had to go back and find it.

We CAN judge people of the 1800's. They knew slavery was wrong.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/16/2017 1:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/16/2017 12:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/16/2017 12:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/16/2017 12:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/16/2017 12:32:00 PM (view original):
LOL. As a relative newcomer to the political arguments, you've picked up "ignore the dumbass **** I said because it now hurts my agenda" that the libs use regularly pretty quickly.

So, does referring to slaves as property make one a narrow-minded piece of **** or not? It's a yes/no question.

Okay fine. I'll argue with you.

Here's the point. I've said it many, many times but you're stubborn and dense.

You - in 2017- saying that Lincoln killed 600,000 Americans over property is not the same as Lincoln saying -in 1861- that he won't take away property from the Southern states in his inaugural address. You- as a man living in 2017- have the benefit of hindsight and have a more civilized view of people and the world (I hope).

I've said, many times, that I don't like applying my 2017 viewpoint to 1861 standards. What we see/feel today is not what they saw/felt then. So condemning slave owners in 1861 for a legal practice is just plain *** stupid. The US Government, and Lincoln-god, both viewed slaves as property. So condemning them for considering slaves property is equally stupid. So, when I say slaves were property, I'm saying that was the goddam law of the land.

Is there something the bleeding heart left does not understand about that?

Wait, wasn't a big part of your argument earlier in this thread that the South would have given up slavery voluntarily soon as the rest of the world already had because everyone knew that slavery was wrong?

Britain abolished slavery in 1888. If you'd have opened the link I provided, you'd have educated yourself to that fact.

Although I'm not sure what your point is. Slavery was legal in the US in 1861. Math says that was 27 years before Britain abolished slavery.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 abolish slavery in 'nearly' all of Britian's colonies?

Slavery Abolition Act of 1833