It is currently Sun Feb 23, 2025 5:17 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 449 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 15  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 8:20 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
leashyourkids wrote:
Nas wrote:
There you go again lying about my record. I've said from the beginning that if Bernie was an idealist (I said true believer) I would be his biggest fan. I still wouldn't have voted for him because I made a promise but I would have loved him. I'll take a pragmatist who I disagree with over a charlatan every day of the week.

Lincoln is like the guy who created Viagra. He was trying to accomplish another goal but accidentally did something even greater. I appreciate his contributions but will never consider him to be a better president than Washington (the Babe Ruth of presidents) or the Roosevelts. If you put him 4th I may not necessarily agree but I wouldn't argue about it.


You made a promise? To who, Satan? I hope so because Satan is more principled than Hillary. Maybe she can call out Bernie as a gun advocate again because he wouldn't allow litigation against gun manufacturers for murder. Of course, Hillary understands how ridiculous that is, but she would sell what's left of her soul to be president for a day.

Anyway... we've already established that Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery, and neither you nor anyone else has provided evidence to the contrary.


"You think slavery is right and should be extended, while we think it is wrong and should be limited. That, I suppose, is the trouble. It surely is the only important difference between us."

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 8:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:50 pm
Posts: 16078
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Quote:
George Washington became a slave owner at the early age of eleven, when his father died and left him the 280 acre farm near Fredericksburg, Virginia where the family was then living. In addition, Washington was willed ten slaves. As a young adult, Washington purchased at least eight slaves, including a carpenter named Kitt who was acquired for £39.5. Washington purchases more slaves in 1755, four other men, two women, and a child.

It was after his marriage to Martha Dandridge Custis in January of 1759 that Washington's slaveholdings increased dramatically. His young bride was the widow of a wealthy planter, Daniel Parke Custis, who died without a will in 1757; her share of the Custis estate brought another eighty-four slaves to Mount Vernon. In the sixteen years between his marriage and the beginning of the American Revolution, Washington acquired slightly more than 40 additional slaves through purchase.2 Most of the subsequent increase in the slave population at Mount Vernon occurred as a result of the large number of children born on the estate.


http://www.mountvernon.org/digital-ency ... d-slavery/

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 8:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19525
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
long time guy wrote:
I'm much more interested in what he did as opposed to what he said. I could also find another set of quotes which demonstrate something completely opposite.

When it was all said and done slavery ended as result of the South losing the Civil War. Lincoln didn't advocate for the war at all. His involvement was a reaction to secession efforts on the part of Southern States. At no point of his political career did he advocate for an end to slavery. If the South doesn't secede then there is no way slavery ends during his Presidency.


His election started the war. You have zero facts here. There is no way of knowing what would have happened if the South didn't rebel. Here are the facts: he won the war and freed the slaves. Since that's what you are interested in.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 8:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:
I'm much more interested in what he did as opposed to what he said. I could also find another set of quotes which demonstrate something completely opposite.

When it was all said and done slavery ended as result of the South losing the Civil War. Lincoln didn't advocate for the war at all. His involvement was a reaction to secession efforts on the part of Southern States. At no point of his political career did he advocate for an end to slavery. If the South doesn't secede then there is no way slavery ends during his Presidency.


His election started the war. You have zero facts here. There is no way of knowing what would have happened if the South didn't rebel. Here are the facts: he won the war and freed the slaves. Since that's what you are interested in.



This is where the disconnect lay. He was perfectly content to allow for the continuation of slavery. He wasn't in favor of the expansion of slavery. The South rebelled because Lincoln wouldn't allow slavery to expand. His antipathy towards slavery didn't result in there being a Civil War. Abolition of slavery wasn't even part of his rationale for fighting the war.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 8:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19525
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
long time guy wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:
I'm much more interested in what he did as opposed to what he said. I could also find another set of quotes which demonstrate something completely opposite.

When it was all said and done slavery ended as result of the South losing the Civil War. Lincoln didn't advocate for the war at all. His involvement was a reaction to secession efforts on the part of Southern States. At no point of his political career did he advocate for an end to slavery. If the South doesn't secede then there is no way slavery ends during his Presidency.


His election started the war. You have zero facts here. There is no way of knowing what would have happened if the South didn't rebel. Here are the facts: he won the war and freed the slaves. Since that's what you are interested in.



This is where the disconnect lay. He was perfectly content to allow for the continuation of slavery. He wasn't in favor of the expansion of slavery. The South rebelled because Lincoln wouldn't allow slavery to expand. His antipathy towards slavery didn't result in there being a Civil War. Abolition of slavery wasn't even part of his rationale for fighting the war.


You started that you did not care about his thoughts. This includes his rationale for fighting. He led a war effort that punished the South for slavery and ended the institution. If he had gone after slavery before he won the war, there is a better chance that he loses the war. And you have zero way of proving he would have kept slavery in the south because he never had the opportunity.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 8:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:
I'm much more interested in what he did as opposed to what he said. I could also find another set of quotes which demonstrate something completely opposite.

When it was all said and done slavery ended as result of the South losing the Civil War. Lincoln didn't advocate for the war at all. His involvement was a reaction to secession efforts on the part of Southern States. At no point of his political career did he advocate for an end to slavery. If the South doesn't secede then there is no way slavery ends during his Presidency.


His election started the war. You have zero facts here. There is no way of knowing what would have happened if the South didn't rebel. Here are the facts: he won the war and freed the slaves. Since that's what you are interested in.



This is where the disconnect lay. He was perfectly content to allow for the continuation of slavery. He wasn't in favor of the expansion of slavery. The South rebelled because Lincoln wouldn't allow slavery to expand. His antipathy towards slavery didn't result in there being a Civil War. Abolition of slavery wasn't even part of his rationale for fighting the war.


You started that you did not care about his thoughts. This includes his rationale for fighting. He led a war effort that punished the South for slavery and ended the institution. If he had gone after slavery before he won the war, there is a better chance that he loses the war. And you have zero way of proving he would have kept slavery in the south because he never had the opportunity.


You are continuously making false statements. The fact of the matter is that the South seceded from the Union. This led to the start of the Civil War. How can you make the claim that he punished States for slavery when 4 states were allowed to have slaves for the entirety of the war?

It was Lincoln who stated that his primary goal was to preserve the Union. If maintaining slavery accomplished this then he'd do it. If ending slavery accomplished this then he'd do it.

American History USA
https://www.americanhistoryusa.com/grea ... cede-1860/

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Last edited by long time guy on Mon Feb 20, 2017 8:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 8:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Nas wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Nas wrote:
There you go again lying about my record. I've said from the beginning that if Bernie was an idealist (I said true believer) I would be his biggest fan. I still wouldn't have voted for him because I made a promise but I would have loved him. I'll take a pragmatist who I disagree with over a charlatan every day of the week.

Lincoln is like the guy who created Viagra. He was trying to accomplish another goal but accidentally did something even greater. I appreciate his contributions but will never consider him to be a better president than Washington (the Babe Ruth of presidents) or the Roosevelts. If you put him 4th I may not necessarily agree but I wouldn't argue about it.


You made a promise? To who, Satan? I hope so because Satan is more principled than Hillary. Maybe she can call out Bernie as a gun advocate again because he wouldn't allow litigation against gun manufacturers for murder. Of course, Hillary understands how ridiculous that is, but she would sell what's left of her soul to be president for a day.

Anyway... we've already established that Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery, and neither you nor anyone else has provided evidence to the contrary.


"You think slavery is right and should be extended, while we think it is wrong and should be limited. That, I suppose, is the trouble. It surely is the only important difference between us."



I'm sorry Abe didn't want to expand slavery.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 8:52 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
leashyourkids wrote:
Nas wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Nas wrote:
There you go again lying about my record. I've said from the beginning that if Bernie was an idealist (I said true believer) I would be his biggest fan. I still wouldn't have voted for him because I made a promise but I would have loved him. I'll take a pragmatist who I disagree with over a charlatan every day of the week.

Lincoln is like the guy who created Viagra. He was trying to accomplish another goal but accidentally did something even greater. I appreciate his contributions but will never consider him to be a better president than Washington (the Babe Ruth of presidents) or the Roosevelts. If you put him 4th I may not necessarily agree but I wouldn't argue about it.


You made a promise? To who, Satan? I hope so because Satan is more principled than Hillary. Maybe she can call out Bernie as a gun advocate again because he wouldn't allow litigation against gun manufacturers for murder. Of course, Hillary understands how ridiculous that is, but she would sell what's left of her soul to be president for a day.

Anyway... we've already established that Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery, and neither you nor anyone else has provided evidence to the contrary.


"You think slavery is right and should be extended, while we think it is wrong and should be limited. That, I suppose, is the trouble. It surely is the only important difference between us."



I'm sorry Abe didn't want to expand slavery.


Correct!

You still owe my amazing grandmother an apology. She'll probably still punch you in your sleep.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 23548
pizza_Place: Giordano's
long time guy wrote:
The South rebelled because Lincoln wouldn't allow slavery to expand.


Here again is this nonsensical point you keep pushing. The South seceded because in wanting to limit the expansion of slavery, the North and Lincoln had cast the very foundation of those various states as vile, and it was only a matter of time before slavery was likewise declared illegal in their territory as well.

The notion that South Carolina seceded because Minnesota wasn't allowed to have slaves is ludicrous. Why would governments in the South potentially start a war because the Union reinforced their monopoly on a certain means of production?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19525
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
long time guy wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:
I'm much more interested in what he did as opposed to what he said. I could also find another set of quotes which demonstrate something completely opposite.

When it was all said and done slavery ended as result of the South losing the Civil War. Lincoln didn't advocate for the war at all. His involvement was a reaction to secession efforts on the part of Southern States. At no point of his political career did he advocate for an end to slavery. If the South doesn't secede then there is no way slavery ends during his Presidency.


His election started the war. You have zero facts here. There is no way of knowing what would have happened if the South didn't rebel. Here are the facts: he won the war and freed the slaves. Since that's what you are interested in.



This is where the disconnect lay. He was perfectly content to allow for the continuation of slavery. He wasn't in favor of the expansion of slavery. The South rebelled because Lincoln wouldn't allow slavery to expand. His antipathy towards slavery didn't result in there being a Civil War. Abolition of slavery wasn't even part of his rationale for fighting the war.


You started that you did not care about his thoughts. This includes his rationale for fighting. He led a war effort that punished the South for slavery and ended the institution. If he had gone after slavery before he won the war, there is a better chance that he loses the war. And you have zero way of proving he would have kept slavery in the south because he never had the opportunity.


You are continuously making false statements. The fact of the matter is that the South seceded from the Union. This led to the start of the Civil War. How can you make the claim that he punished States for slavery when 4 states were allowed to have slaves for the entirety of the war?

It was Lincoln who stated that his primary goal was to preserve the Union. If maintaining slavery accomplished this then he'd do it. If ending slavery accomplished this then he'd do it.

American History USA
https://www.americanhistoryusa.com/grea ... cede-1860/


He invaded the South, don't you think that's a form of punishment? What false facts? You stated you do not care what his thoughts were. So why do you care what his "primary goal" was? You are literally over over the place.

As for allowing slaver in certain states. He did not want other states to take up arms against the Union. If the war was lost slavery was going to continue regardless if the South won. Also, how was he supposed to enforce freeing slaves outside the Confederacy law when all federal powerful power was being used to fight the rebellion? So what's your point here?

Let's get to the bottom of this because you are not making any sense. You think Lincoln was racist so you don't like him. There are no facts that could change your mind.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 10:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Nas wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Nas wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Nas wrote:
There you go again lying about my record. I've said from the beginning that if Bernie was an idealist (I said true believer) I would be his biggest fan. I still wouldn't have voted for him because I made a promise but I would have loved him. I'll take a pragmatist who I disagree with over a charlatan every day of the week.

Lincoln is like the guy who created Viagra. He was trying to accomplish another goal but accidentally did something even greater. I appreciate his contributions but will never consider him to be a better president than Washington (the Babe Ruth of presidents) or the Roosevelts. If you put him 4th I may not necessarily agree but I wouldn't argue about it.


You made a promise? To who, Satan? I hope so because Satan is more principled than Hillary. Maybe she can call out Bernie as a gun advocate again because he wouldn't allow litigation against gun manufacturers for murder. Of course, Hillary understands how ridiculous that is, but she would sell what's left of her soul to be president for a day.

Anyway... we've already established that Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery, and neither you nor anyone else has provided evidence to the contrary.


"You think slavery is right and should be extended, while we think it is wrong and should be limited. That, I suppose, is the trouble. It surely is the only important difference between us."



I'm sorry Abe didn't want to expand slavery.


Correct!

You still owe my amazing grandmother an apology. She'll probably still punch you in your sleep.


I would never insult Grandma Nas, so give her my apologies. Please also let her know that I'm sorry her grandson would use her as a weapon. ;)

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 10:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 3:52 pm
Posts: 360
pizza_Place: Local entrepreneurs only
Pro-slavery protesters were Soros paid agitators who wanted to undermine Lincolns' presidency by trying to break away from the union. They were also democrats by the way and are up to the same shit today except for the racial stuff. Trump inheritated that shit from the libtards of lincolns' time but if u listen to the MSM in their presentist bias theyll never acknowledge the racism of libtards back in the 1800s and just present it as trumps' alone.

_________________
libtard's personfied:

Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
You said "naked" and bearing breasts (which are reproductive organs and thus technically "genitals" are they not?) is "naked" for all intents and purposes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 10:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:29 pm
Posts: 34795
pizza_Place: Al's Pizza
Bootstraps Max wrote:
Pro-slavery protesters were Soros paid agitators who wanted to undermine Lincolns' presidency by trying to break away from the union. They were also democrats by the way and are up to the same shit today except for the racial stuff. Trump inheritated that shit from the libtards of lincolns' time but if u listen to the MSM in their presentist bias theyll never acknowledge the racism of libtards back in the 1800s and just present it as trumps' alone.


Less is more.

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 10:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2016 8:37 am
Posts: 16
pizza_Place: Places that give change
Chus wrote:
Bootstraps Max wrote:
Pro-slavery protesters were Soros paid agitators who wanted to undermine Lincolns' presidency by trying to break away from the union. They were also democrats by the way and are up to the same shit today except for the racial stuff. Trump inheritated that shit from the libtards of lincolns' time but if u listen to the MSM in their presentist bias theyll never acknowledge the racism of libtards back in the 1800s and just present it as trumps' alone.


Less is more.


Agreed! Especially posts about bowling!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 10:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:29 pm
Posts: 34795
pizza_Place: Al's Pizza
$1,000 wrote:
Chus wrote:
Bootstraps Max wrote:
Pro-slavery protesters were Soros paid agitators who wanted to undermine Lincolns' presidency by trying to break away from the union. They were also democrats by the way and are up to the same shit today except for the racial stuff. Trump inheritated that shit from the libtards of lincolns' time but if u listen to the MSM in their presentist bias theyll never acknowledge the racism of libtards back in the 1800s and just present it as trumps' alone.


Less is more.


Agreed! Especially posts about bowling!


Welcome back.

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 11:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 56745
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
Nas wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Nas wrote:
There you go again lying about my record. I've said from the beginning that if Bernie was an idealist (I said true believer) I would be his biggest fan. I still wouldn't have voted for him because I made a promise but I would have loved him. I'll take a pragmatist who I disagree with over a charlatan every day of the week.

Lincoln is like the guy who created Viagra. He was trying to accomplish another goal but accidentally did something even greater. I appreciate his contributions but will never consider him to be a better president than Washington (the Babe Ruth of presidents) or the Roosevelts. If you put him 4th I may not necessarily agree but I wouldn't argue about it.


You made a promise? To who, Satan? I hope so because Satan is more principled than Hillary. Maybe she can call out Bernie as a gun advocate again because he wouldn't allow litigation against gun manufacturers for murder. Of course, Hillary understands how ridiculous that is, but she would sell what's left of her soul to be president for a day.

Anyway... we've already established that Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery, and neither you nor anyone else has provided evidence to the contrary.


My grandmother was a gstrong woman who did a lot of great things in her life. She definitely wouldn't appreciate being called Satan. A Saint? Probably.


What, you promised your grandma you wouldn't vote for a Jew?

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 11:24 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
Curious Hair wrote:
Nas wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Nas wrote:
There you go again lying about my record. I've said from the beginning that if Bernie was an idealist (I said true believer) I would be his biggest fan. I still wouldn't have voted for him because I made a promise but I would have loved him. I'll take a pragmatist who I disagree with over a charlatan every day of the week.

Lincoln is like the guy who created Viagra. He was trying to accomplish another goal but accidentally did something even greater. I appreciate his contributions but will never consider him to be a better president than Washington (the Babe Ruth of presidents) or the Roosevelts. If you put him 4th I may not necessarily agree but I wouldn't argue about it.


You made a promise? To who, Satan? I hope so because Satan is more principled than Hillary. Maybe she can call out Bernie as a gun advocate again because he wouldn't allow litigation against gun manufacturers for murder. Of course, Hillary understands how ridiculous that is, but she would sell what's left of her soul to be president for a day.

Anyway... we've already established that Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery, and neither you nor anyone else has provided evidence to the contrary.


My grandmother was a gstrong woman who did a lot of great things in her life. She definitely wouldn't appreciate being called Satan. A Saint? Probably.


What, you promised your grandma you wouldn't vote for a Jew?


My dying Grandmother wanted to see a woman become president. More specifically she wanted to see Hillary beome president. I promised her that if Hillary ran again I would support and vote for her. I kept my promise. It was easier to keep considering she ran against 70 year old charlatans. One who is still stealing $200k from the tax payers for not working. Sad!

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 11:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Goddammit, Nas... you're the one who keeps reigniting the fire.

Your use of the word "charlatan" is ridiculous. Hillary Clinton's picture should be in the dictionary next to the word "charlatan." She doesn't give a rat's ass about you, your family, or your community. You know what she cares about?... getting elected. I'm sorry you and Grandma Nas fell for her tricks. You seem like good people who deserve better.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 11:41 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
leashyourkids wrote:
Goddammit, Nas... you're the one who keeps reigniting the fire.

Your use of the word "charlatan" is ridiculous. Hillary Clinton's picture should be in the dictionary next to the word "charlatan." She doesn't give a rat's ass about you, your family, or your community. You know what she cares about?... getting elected. I'm sorry you and Grandma Nas fell for her tricks. You seem like good people who deserve better.


I didn't bring up Thieving Bernie.

I understood why most older women would support Hillary. Especially a woman who was born black and a few years after women finally got the right to vote.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 12:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 56745
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
Nas wrote:
I didn't bring up Thieving Bernie.

Jesus fucking Christ, you troll.

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 12:31 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
Curious Hair wrote:
Nas wrote:
I didn't bring up Thieving Bernie.

Jesus fucking Christ, you troll.


What's your favorite piece of Thieving Bernie legislation? How many times has he gone against the Democratic Party when his vote was needed? Thieving Bernie is an all talk charlatan. Sad! #WakeUp

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 12:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 19344
pizza_Place: World Famous Pizza
veganfan21 wrote:
Quote:
George Washington became a slave owner at the early age of eleven, when his father died and left him the 280 acre farm near Fredericksburg, Virginia where the family was then living. In addition, Washington was willed ten slaves. As a young adult, Washington purchased at least eight slaves, including a carpenter named Kitt who was acquired for £39.5. Washington purchases more slaves in 1755, four other men, two women, and a child.

It was after his marriage to Martha Dandridge Custis in January of 1759 that Washington's slaveholdings increased dramatically. His young bride was the widow of a wealthy planter, Daniel Parke Custis, who died without a will in 1757; her share of the Custis estate brought another eighty-four slaves to Mount Vernon. In the sixteen years between his marriage and the beginning of the American Revolution, Washington acquired slightly more than 40 additional slaves through purchase.2 Most of the subsequent increase in the slave population at Mount Vernon occurred as a result of the large number of children born on the estate.


http://www.mountvernon.org/digital-ency ... d-slavery/


What's this about?

_________________
Seacrest wrote:
The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 12:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:
I'm much more interested in what he did as opposed to what he said. I could also find another set of quotes which demonstrate something completely opposite.

When it was all said and done slavery ended as result of the South losing the Civil War. Lincoln didn't advocate for the war at all. His involvement was a reaction to secession efforts on the part of Southern States. At no point of his political career did he advocate for an end to slavery. If the South doesn't secede then there is no way slavery ends during his Presidency.


His election started the war. You have zero facts here. There is no way of knowing what would have happened if the South didn't rebel. Here are the facts: he won the war and freed the slaves. Since that's what you are interested in.



This is where the disconnect lay. He was perfectly content to allow for the continuation of slavery. He wasn't in favor of the expansion of slavery. The South rebelled because Lincoln wouldn't allow slavery to expand. His antipathy towards slavery didn't result in there being a Civil War. Abolition of slavery wasn't even part of his rationale for fighting the war.


You started that you did not care about his thoughts. This includes his rationale for fighting. He led a war effort that punished the South for slavery and ended the institution. If he had gone after slavery before he won the war, there is a better chance that he loses the war. And you have zero way of proving he would have kept slavery in the south because he never had the opportunity.


You are continuously making false statements. The fact of the matter is that the South seceded from the Union. This led to the start of the Civil War. How can you make the claim that he punished States for slavery when 4 states were allowed to have slaves for the entirety of the war?

It was Lincoln who stated that his primary goal was to preserve the Union. If maintaining slavery accomplished this then he'd do it. If ending slavery accomplished this then he'd do it.

American History USA
https://www.americanhistoryusa.com/grea ... cede-1860/


He invaded the South, don't you think that's a form of punishment? What false facts? You stated you do not care what his thoughts were. So why do you care what his "primary goal" was? You are literally over over the place.

As for allowing slaver in certain states. He did not want other states to take up arms against the Union. If the war was lost slavery was going to continue regardless if the South won. Also, how was he supposed to enforce freeing slaves outside the Confederacy law when all federal powerful power was being used to fight the rebellion? So what's your point here?

Let's get to the bottom of this because you are not making any sense. You think Lincoln was racist so you don't like him. There are no facts that could change your mind.



You haven't provided many and you are comfortable ascribing motives but you think it OK for me to do so. As far as Lincoln''s racism that plays a role but it isn't the defining thing for me.

When I hear "went to war to end slavery" it's false.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 7:51 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 80514
Location: Rogers Park, USA
pizza_Place: JB Alberto's
long time guy wrote:
When I hear "went to war to end slavery" it's false.


That's nothing more than the flip side of racist Southerners arguing that they weren't fighting for slavery but rather for the rights of the states. In the case of the Civil War the two are inextricably linked. Lincoln was certainly smart enough to understand that continuing forward as a single nation while the country was split between the industrial North and an agrarian South based upon free labor was simply untenable. This is really a battle that goes back to the founding of the nation, a battle between centralized government vs. an uneasy confederation of separate states, a battle between Southern planters vs. Northern industrialists.

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 8:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19525
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
long time guy wrote:
You haven't provided many and you are comfortable ascribing motives but you think it OK for me to do so. As far as Lincoln''s racism that plays a role but it isn't the defining thing for me.

When I hear "went to war to end slavery" it's false.


I have provided all the facts. You choose to speculate on what Lincoln's "real motivation" was. There were quotes in this thread that showed his distaste for slavery, and his understanding that the nation could not go on as half slave and half free. Do you think he went to war to keep slavery intact? It was going away as soon as his election triggered Southern rebellion.

Blaming Lincoln for Jim Crow is the definition of fake facts.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 9:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:50 pm
Posts: 16078
pizza_Place: Malnati's
SpiralStairs wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:
Quote:
George Washington became a slave owner at the early age of eleven, when his father died and left him the 280 acre farm near Fredericksburg, Virginia where the family was then living. In addition, Washington was willed ten slaves. As a young adult, Washington purchased at least eight slaves, including a carpenter named Kitt who was acquired for £39.5. Washington purchases more slaves in 1755, four other men, two women, and a child.

It was after his marriage to Martha Dandridge Custis in January of 1759 that Washington's slaveholdings increased dramatically. His young bride was the widow of a wealthy planter, Daniel Parke Custis, who died without a will in 1757; her share of the Custis estate brought another eighty-four slaves to Mount Vernon. In the sixteen years between his marriage and the beginning of the American Revolution, Washington acquired slightly more than 40 additional slaves through purchase.2 Most of the subsequent increase in the slave population at Mount Vernon occurred as a result of the large number of children born on the estate.


http://www.mountvernon.org/digital-ency ... d-slavery/


What's this about?


This was directed to Nas who said he didn't like Lincoln because he wasn't morally against the subjugation of Africans at but at the same time Nas praised Washington, a slave holder. My point is if you want to criticize Lincoln's attitudes and beliefs on slaves then you have to criticize everyone at that time and earlier, like Washington.

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 9:27 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
veganfan21 wrote:
SpiralStairs wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:
Quote:
George Washington became a slave owner at the early age of eleven, when his father died and left him the 280 acre farm near Fredericksburg, Virginia where the family was then living. In addition, Washington was willed ten slaves. As a young adult, Washington purchased at least eight slaves, including a carpenter named Kitt who was acquired for £39.5. Washington purchases more slaves in 1755, four other men, two women, and a child.

It was after his marriage to Martha Dandridge Custis in January of 1759 that Washington's slaveholdings increased dramatically. His young bride was the widow of a wealthy planter, Daniel Parke Custis, who died without a will in 1757; her share of the Custis estate brought another eighty-four slaves to Mount Vernon. In the sixteen years between his marriage and the beginning of the American Revolution, Washington acquired slightly more than 40 additional slaves through purchase.2 Most of the subsequent increase in the slave population at Mount Vernon occurred as a result of the large number of children born on the estate.


http://www.mountvernon.org/digital-ency ... d-slavery/


What's this about?


This was directed to Nas who said he didn't like Lincoln because he wasn't morally against the subjugation of Africans at but at the same time Nas praised Washington, a slave holder. My point is if you want to criticize Lincoln's attitudes and beliefs on slaves then you have to criticize everyone at that time and earlier, like Washington.


Wrong! Why are you making stuff up?

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 9:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:
You haven't provided many and you are comfortable ascribing motives but you think it OK for me to do so. As far as Lincoln''s racism that plays a role but it isn't the defining thing for me.

When I hear "went to war to end slavery" it's false.


I have provided all the facts. You choose to speculate on what Lincoln's "real motivation" was. There were quotes in this thread that showed his distaste for slavery, and his understanding that the nation could not go on as half slave and half free. Do you think he went to war to keep slavery intact? It was going away as soon as his election triggered Southern rebellion.

Blaming Lincoln for Jim Crow is the definition of fake facts.



You cherry picked quotes to fit your narrative. I can also pick quotes that show how he thought blacks were inferior. I can also pick quotes stating that blacks should go back to Africa. I also can cherry pick quotes which stated that he wasn't willing to go to war over slavery. Mt argument isn't whether Lincoln believed in slavery or not. My argument pertains to the fallacious argument regarding ending slavery. That speaks to intent and no point in his career fid he every intend to end slavery. That is my point. He was at best indifferent on the issue.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 9:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 23548
pizza_Place: Giordano's
long time guy wrote:
That speaks to intent and no point in his career fid he every intend to end slavery.


He recklessly ended slavery? Negligently? Or did he only have a general intent for an act that requires specific intent?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 9:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19525
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
long time guy wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:
You haven't provided many and you are comfortable ascribing motives but you think it OK for me to do so. As far as Lincoln''s racism that plays a role but it isn't the defining thing for me.

When I hear "went to war to end slavery" it's false.


I have provided all the facts. You choose to speculate on what Lincoln's "real motivation" was. There were quotes in this thread that showed his distaste for slavery, and his understanding that the nation could not go on as half slave and half free. Do you think he went to war to keep slavery intact? It was going away as soon as his election triggered Southern rebellion.

Blaming Lincoln for Jim Crow is the definition of fake facts.



You cherry picked quotes to fit your narrative. I can also pick quotes that show how he thought blacks were inferior. I can also pick quotes stating that blacks should go back to Africa. I also can cherry pick quotes which stated that he wasn't willing to go to war over slavery. Mt argument isn't whether Lincoln believed in slavery or not. My argument pertains to the fallacious argument regarding ending slavery. That speaks to intent and no point in his career fid he every intend to end slavery. That is my point. He was at best indifferent on the issue.


When presented with quotes earlier you said you did not care about what he said, just what he did. Now you want to get into a contest to cherry pick quotes? If he was such a slavery supporter why did the South go to war over his election?

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 449 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 15  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group