# List the 5 Presidents you most admire and the reason



## heirtothewind

FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT- gave people hope through Great Depression and WW II

ABRAHAM LINCOLN- dealt with Civil War and still attended to westward expansion

LYNDON JOHNSON- enforced civil rights and tried to build the Great Society

GEORGE WASHINGTON- set precedents for use of executive power

THEODORE ROOSEVELT- proved he was not a puppet president like his predecessor


----------



## TheOldSchool

1.  Teddy Roosevelt - the most badass of all Presidents.  We could use someone with his stones today.

2.  James Monroe - the Monroe doctrine should never have been abandoned

3.  Thomas Jefferson - founding father, declaration of independence, Louisiana purchase

4.  George Washington - for obvious reasons

5.  Abe Lincoln - saved the Union


----------



## heirtothewind

Often overlooked are

JAMES POLK - added northwest and southwest to  US, expanding it from Atlantic to Pacific

HARRY TRUMAN- courage to drop A-bomb and fire MacArthur


----------



## longly

1. George Washington

2. George Washington

3. George Washington

4. Benedict Arnold for providing Washington with an example of what not to be.

5. George Washington; No other president even comes close. He gave us everything we have today by ensuring the establishment of a republic capable of evolving. He was not a highly intelligent man. He was neither a great general or president, but he turned down two opportunities to be king. Do you guys realize how rare that is? If he had seized power we would have turned out to be a very different country. We are a very ungrateful people, we don’t celebrate his birthday.


----------



## Unkotare

Washington
Jefferson
Lincoln
Reagan
W


----------



## jwoodie

I admire/respect those who hold true to their principles, especially in times of adversity:

1.  George Washington, who persevered through the darkest days of the Revolutionary War and voluntarily relinquished his Presidency.

2.  John Adams, who faithfully executed his duties as President despite scurrilous partisan attacks and left office with his dignity intact.

3.  James Polk, who fulfilled his agenda during his first term and declined a second term.

4.  Theodore Roosevelt, who honored his promise to not run for a third consecutive term.

5.  Ronald Reagan, who refused extortion by the Air Traffic Controllers, faced down the Soviet Union and liberated Eastern Europe.


----------



## Dan Daly

I often wonder why Lincoln is so revered.  If you and I were married and you wanted a divorce, would you give me your undying love and loyalty if I used force to prevent you from leaving me and destroyed all your stuff in the process?

Lincoln proved that we are not a free nation, because free nations don't need to be held together by force.


----------



## Unkotare

Dan Daly said:


> I often wonder why Lincoln is so revered. ...



Because he preserved the Union, punished the traitorous Confederate dogs, and set forces in motion that would inevitably and finally end the scourge of slavery in this nation.


----------



## Dan Daly

Unkotare said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I often wonder why Lincoln is so revered. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because he preserved the Union, punished the traitorous Confederate dogs, and set forces in motion that would inevitably and finally end the scourge of slavery in this nation.
Click to expand...


So you'd beat your wife half to death and force her to stay married to you to preserve your union?  Nice.  Bet the women just loooove you.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Calvin Coolidge. Had the most respect for the power of the Presidency and used it only to better the nation

Ronald Reagan. Believed in America, loved everything we once were. Defeated the USSR

George Washington. Set the standard few have followed


----------



## gipper

heirtothewind said:


> FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT- gave people hope through Great Depression and WW II
> 
> ABRAHAM LINCOLN- dealt with Civil War and still attended to westward expansion
> 
> LYNDON JOHNSON- enforced civil rights and tried to build the Great Society
> 
> GEORGE WASHINGTON- set precedents for use of executive power
> 
> THEODORE ROOSEVELT- proved he was not a puppet president like his predecessor



Damn!  Four of the five you listed are known to be terrible lying warmongering fools.

Statism has brainwashed many.

Only three were good:
Washington
Jefferson
Coolidge


----------



## Unkotare

Dan Daly said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I often wonder why Lincoln is so revered. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because he preserved the Union, punished the traitorous Confederate dogs, and set forces in motion that would inevitably and finally end the scourge of slavery in this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you'd beat your wife half to death and force her to stay married to you to preserve your union?  Nice.  Bet the women just loooove you.
Click to expand...



Don't bring up family and don't make false analogies.


----------



## rightwinger

Not too hard

Lincoln: Preserved the union, made us the UNITED STATES not just a bunch of states that were united

FDR: Brought us through the depression, showed how a modern democracy should act, carried us through WWII, Made us a Superpower

Teddy Roosevelt: One of our first modern presidents, showed what presidential power was about, Panama Canal, broke up the trusts, National Parks

Wilson: Gave us a modern monetary system, Brought us through WWI and helped broker the peace

Washington: Layed the groundwork for future Presidents and Presidential Powers


----------



## Dan Daly

Unkotare said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I often wonder why Lincoln is so revered. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because he preserved the Union, punished the traitorous Confederate dogs, and set forces in motion that would inevitably and finally end the scourge of slavery in this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you'd beat your wife half to death and force her to stay married to you to preserve your union?  Nice.  Bet the women just loooove you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't bring up family and don't make false analogies.
Click to expand...


It's only a false analogy because you don't like it.   If it's OK for the goose to retain a union by force and violence then it must be OK for the gander as well.   When you have the balls to examine the hard truth about your mythical heroes with objectivity rather than emotional drama, let me know.  Thanks.


----------



## Thunderbird

heirtothewind said:


> FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT- gave people hope through Great Depression and WW II
> 
> ABRAHAM LINCOLN- dealt with Civil War and still attended to westward expansion


These two top the list of presidents who killed the most Americans in unnecessary wars.

FDR:
WW II enslaved millions to Communism.
*The Communist Agent Who Caused Pearl Harbor — and Global Economic Havoc*

Lincoln:
Many nations succeeded in ending slavery without a brutal civil war.
*Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream*


----------



## Roadrunner

heirtothewind said:


> FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT- gave people hope through Great Depression and WW II
> 
> ABRAHAM LINCOLN- dealt with Civil War and still attended to westward expansion
> 
> LYNDON JOHNSON- enforced civil rights and tried to build the Great Society
> 
> GEORGE WASHINGTON- set precedents for use of executive power
> 
> THEODORE ROOSEVELT- proved he was not a puppet president like his predecessor


1. Washington, for getting us off to a good start.

2. Jefferson, for gaining Louisiana, and removing enemies from our western and southern borders.

3. Jackson, for expanding voting rights for average white men(one step on the road to universal suffrage).

4. George W. Bush, for finally striking out against terror, even if a bit blindly at times.

5. Yet to be elected.


----------



## Roadrunner

Unkotare said:


> Washington
> Jefferson
> Lincoln
> Reagan
> W


I'd have to drop Lincoln.


----------



## Roadrunner

TheOldSchool said:


> 1.  Teddy Roosevelt - the most badass of all Presidents.  We could use someone with his stones today.
> 
> 2.  James Monroe - the Monroe doctrine should never have been abandoned
> 
> 3.  Thomas Jefferson - founding father, declaration of independence, Louisiana purchase
> 
> 4.  George Washington - for obvious reasons
> 
> 5.  Abe Lincoln - saved the Union


Saying Lincoln saved the Union is like saying Obama saved us from the Ebola his lame ass border control policies allowed in here.


----------



## Roadrunner

Thunderbird said:


> heirtothewind said:
> 
> 
> 
> FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT- gave people hope through Great Depression and WW II
> 
> ABRAHAM LINCOLN- dealt with Civil War and still attended to westward expansion
> 
> 
> 
> These two top the list of presidents who killed the most Americans in unnecessary wars.
> 
> FDR:
> WW II enslaved millions to Communism.
> *The Communist Agent Who Caused Pearl Harbor — and Global Economic Havoc*
> 
> Lincoln:
> Many nations succeeded in ending slavery without a brutal civil war.
> *Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream*
Click to expand...

FDR was a Dem demagogue who got taken to the cleaners by Stalin.

Hundreds of millions suffered because he thought he could wheel and deal with Stalin like he was some NYC ward boss.


----------



## rightwinger

Roadrunner said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> heirtothewind said:
> 
> 
> 
> FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT- gave people hope through Great Depression and WW II
> 
> ABRAHAM LINCOLN- dealt with Civil War and still attended to westward expansion
> 
> 
> 
> These two top the list of presidents who killed the most Americans in unnecessary wars.
> 
> FDR:
> WW II enslaved millions to Communism.
> *The Communist Agent Who Caused Pearl Harbor — and Global Economic Havoc*
> 
> Lincoln:
> Many nations succeeded in ending slavery without a brutal civil war.
> *Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FDR was a Dem demagogue who got taken to the cleaners by Stalin.
> 
> Hundreds of millions suffered because he thought he could wheel and deal with Stalin like he was some NYC ward boss.
Click to expand...

 
How did FDR get taken to the cleaners by Stalin?

FDR lost 400,000 in the war, Stalin lost 10 million


----------



## rightwinger

Roadrunner said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Teddy Roosevelt - the most badass of all Presidents.  We could use someone with his stones today.
> 
> 2.  James Monroe - the Monroe doctrine should never have been abandoned
> 
> 3.  Thomas Jefferson - founding father, declaration of independence, Louisiana purchase
> 
> 4.  George Washington - for obvious reasons
> 
> 5.  Abe Lincoln - saved the Union
> 
> 
> 
> Saying Lincoln saved the Union is like saying Obama saved us from the Ebola his lame ass border control policies allowed in here.
Click to expand...

 
Seems we had a Union after Lincoln ...was that an accident?


----------



## Dan Daly

rightwinger said:


> Not too hard
> 
> Lincoln: Preserved the union, made us the UNITED STATES not just a bunch of states that were united
> 
> FDR: Brought us through the depression, showed how a modern democracy should act, carried us through WWII, Made us a Superpower
> 
> Teddy Roosevelt: One of our first modern presidents, showed what presidential power was about, Panama Canal, broke up the trusts, National Parks
> 
> Wilson: Gave us a modern monetary system, Brought us through WWI and helped broker the peace
> 
> Washington: Layed the groundwork for future Presidents and Presidential Powers





rightwinger said:


> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Teddy Roosevelt - the most badass of all Presidents.  We could use someone with his stones today.
> 
> 2.  James Monroe - the Monroe doctrine should never have been abandoned
> 
> 3.  Thomas Jefferson - founding father, declaration of independence, Louisiana purchase
> 
> 4.  George Washington - for obvious reasons
> 
> 5.  Abe Lincoln - saved the Union
> 
> 
> 
> Saying Lincoln saved the Union is like saying Obama saved us from the Ebola his lame ass border control policies allowed in here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems we had a Union after Lincoln ...was that an accident?
Click to expand...


If the union needs to be held together by force, violence and threat of violence, it isn't much of a union.  Had we lost the Revolution would you have hailed King George for saving the empire?


----------



## Roadrunner

rightwinger said:


> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> heirtothewind said:
> 
> 
> 
> FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT- gave people hope through Great Depression and WW II
> 
> ABRAHAM LINCOLN- dealt with Civil War and still attended to westward expansion
> 
> 
> 
> These two top the list of presidents who killed the most Americans in unnecessary wars.
> 
> FDR:
> WW II enslaved millions to Communism.
> *The Communist Agent Who Caused Pearl Harbor — and Global Economic Havoc*
> 
> Lincoln:
> Many nations succeeded in ending slavery without a brutal civil war.
> *Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FDR was a Dem demagogue who got taken to the cleaners by Stalin.
> 
> Hundreds of millions suffered because he thought he could wheel and deal with Stalin like he was some NYC ward boss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did FDR get taken to the cleaners by Stalin?
> 
> FDR lost 400,000 in the war, Stalin lost 10 million
Click to expand...

I'm not here to educate you.

But, ask the East Europeans in countries "liberated" by Stalin how they feel about the Yalta capitulation.

BTW, Obama gonna save NYC from Ebola?


----------



## Unkotare

Dan Daly said:


> It's only a false analogy because you don't like it.  ...




It's a false analogy because it's a false analogy. In fact, it is juvenile and ignorant. In every Confederate state except South Carolina, entire regiments were formed to fight on behalf of the Union. More than 100,000 men from the south actively fought against the Confederacy during the war. How does that fit into your idiotic analogy? How does slavery or a dozen other factors? They don't, because the half-baked notion you are so proud of makes no sense.


----------



## Dan Daly

Mao saved China,


Unkotare said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's only a false analogy because you don't like it.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a false analogy because it's a false analogy. In fact, it is juvenile and ignorant. In every Confederate state except South Carolina, entire regiments were formed to fight on behalf of the Union. More than 100,000 men from the south actively fought against the Confederacy during the war. How does that fit into your idiotic analogy? How does slavery or a dozen other factors? They don't, because the half-baked notion you are so proud of makes no sense.
Click to expand...


No, actually your reply is what is juvenile and ignorant.  "I'm right because I'm right" isn't a rational, factual rebuttal, it's an admission of not having a rational, factual, rebuttal. 

That your wife's brother helped you beat her and keep her enslaved to you doesn't justify your use of force and violence to keep her against her will, nor does her owning of slaves to do her housework.  Try again, cupcake.


----------



## Unkotare

Dan Daly said:


> That your wife's brother helped you beat her and keep her enslaved to you doesn't justify your use of force and violence to keep her against her will, nor does her owning of slaves to do her housework.





Attempting to draw out the analogy only highlights how inapplicable it is, dopey. You're making it worse for yourself.


----------



## Dan Daly

Dan Daly said:


> Mao saved China,
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's only a false analogy because you don't like it.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a false analogy because it's a false analogy. In fact, it is juvenile and ignorant. In every Confederate state except South Carolina, entire regiments were formed to fight on behalf of the Union. More than 100,000 men from the south actively fought against the Confederacy during the war. How does that fit into your idiotic analogy? How does slavery or a dozen other factors? They don't, because the half-baked notion you are so proud of makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, actually your reply is what is juvenile and ignorant.  That your wife's brother helped you beat her and keep her enslaved to you doesn't justify your use of force and violence to keep her against her will, nor does her owning of slaves to do her housework.  Try again, cupcake.
Click to expand...




Unkotare said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> That your wife's brother helped you beat her and keep her enslaved to you doesn't justify your use of force and violence to keep her against her will, nor does her owning of slaves to do her housework.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Attempting to draw out the analogy only highlights how inapplicable it is, dopey. You're making it worse for yourself.
Click to expand...


You still haven't managed to refute the analogy with more than "cuz i said so" cupcake.   Keep trying, sooner or later even a blind squirrel finds a nut.


----------



## rightwinger

Dan Daly said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not too hard
> 
> Lincoln: Preserved the union, made us the UNITED STATES not just a bunch of states that were united
> 
> FDR: Brought us through the depression, showed how a modern democracy should act, carried us through WWII, Made us a Superpower
> 
> Teddy Roosevelt: One of our first modern presidents, showed what presidential power was about, Panama Canal, broke up the trusts, National Parks
> 
> Wilson: Gave us a modern monetary system, Brought us through WWI and helped broker the peace
> 
> Washington: Layed the groundwork for future Presidents and Presidential Powers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Teddy Roosevelt - the most badass of all Presidents.  We could use someone with his stones today.
> 
> 2.  James Monroe - the Monroe doctrine should never have been abandoned
> 
> 3.  Thomas Jefferson - founding father, declaration of independence, Louisiana purchase
> 
> 4.  George Washington - for obvious reasons
> 
> 5.  Abe Lincoln - saved the Union
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saying Lincoln saved the Union is like saying Obama saved us from the Ebola his lame ass border control policies allowed in here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems we had a Union after Lincoln ...was that an accident?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the union needs to be held together by force, violence and threat of violence, it isn't much of a union.  Had we lost the Revolution would you have hailed King George for saving the empire?
Click to expand...

Probably


----------



## Unkotare

Dan Daly said:


> Mao saved China...




How do you figure?


----------



## Unkotare

Dan Daly said:


> You still haven't managed to refute the analogy ...




Yes I did, by pointing out to you that the situation was in no way analogous to two individuals deciding not to remain married. Your only response was to try and extend an already false analogy.


----------



## gipper

Dan Daly said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mao saved China,
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's only a false analogy because you don't like it.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a false analogy because it's a false analogy. In fact, it is juvenile and ignorant. In every Confederate state except South Carolina, entire regiments were formed to fight on behalf of the Union. More than 100,000 men from the south actively fought against the Confederacy during the war. How does that fit into your idiotic analogy? How does slavery or a dozen other factors? They don't, because the half-baked notion you are so proud of makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, actually your reply is what is juvenile and ignorant.  That your wife's brother helped you beat her and keep her enslaved to you doesn't justify your use of force and violence to keep her against her will, nor does her owning of slaves to do her housework.  Try again, cupcake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> That your wife's brother helped you beat her and keep her enslaved to you doesn't justify your use of force and violence to keep her against her will, nor does her owning of slaves to do her housework.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Attempting to draw out the analogy only highlights how inapplicable it is, dopey. You're making it worse for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still haven't managed to refute the analogy with more than "cuz i said so" cupcake.   Keep trying, sooner or later even a blind squirrel finds a nut.
Click to expand...


There can be no refutation or justification for Lincoln's murderous rampage. 

Killing 850,000 Americans and destroying half the nation is entirely indefensible.  It is treasonous.

The statists have brainwashed many Americans into thinking preservation of the Union was worth all the death and destruction. 

Dishonest Abe said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."  So, he concluded we must keep the house united...by force.  Only a murderous tyrant would think such things.


----------



## Dan Daly

rightwinger said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not too hard
> 
> Lincoln: Preserved the union, made us the UNITED STATES not just a bunch of states that were united
> 
> FDR: Brought us through the depression, showed how a modern democracy should act, carried us through WWII, Made us a Superpower
> 
> Teddy Roosevelt: One of our first modern presidents, showed what presidential power was about, Panama Canal, broke up the trusts, National Parks
> 
> Wilson: Gave us a modern monetary system, Brought us through WWI and helped broker the peace
> 
> Washington: Layed the groundwork for future Presidents and Presidential Powers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Teddy Roosevelt - the most badass of all Presidents.  We could use someone with his stones today.
> 
> 2.  James Monroe - the Monroe doctrine should never have been abandoned
> 
> 3.  Thomas Jefferson - founding father, declaration of independence, Louisiana purchase
> 
> 4.  George Washington - for obvious reasons
> 
> 5.  Abe Lincoln - saved the Union
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saying Lincoln saved the Union is like saying Obama saved us from the Ebola his lame ass border control policies allowed in here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems we had a Union after Lincoln ...was that an accident?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the union needs to be held together by force, violence and threat of violence, it isn't much of a union.  Had we lost the Revolution would you have hailed King George for saving the empire?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Probably
Click to expand...


Well kudos for being honest.


----------



## Dan Daly

Unkotare said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't managed to refute the analogy ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I did, by pointing out to you that the situation was in no way analogous to two individuals deciding not to remain married. Your only response was to try and extend an already false analogy.
Click to expand...


All you did was point out your opinion...backed up by the fact that is was your opinion.  Try again, lest I consider you a dimwit.  

You cannot prove an analogy false by clicking your ruby slippers together and wishing it so.


----------



## gipper

Dan Daly said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not too hard
> 
> Lincoln: Preserved the union, made us the UNITED STATES not just a bunch of states that were united
> 
> FDR: Brought us through the depression, showed how a modern democracy should act, carried us through WWII, Made us a Superpower
> 
> Teddy Roosevelt: One of our first modern presidents, showed what presidential power was about, Panama Canal, broke up the trusts, National Parks
> 
> Wilson: Gave us a modern monetary system, Brought us through WWI and helped broker the peace
> 
> Washington: Layed the groundwork for future Presidents and Presidential Powers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Teddy Roosevelt - the most badass of all Presidents.  We could use someone with his stones today.
> 
> 2.  James Monroe - the Monroe doctrine should never have been abandoned
> 
> 3.  Thomas Jefferson - founding father, declaration of independence, Louisiana purchase
> 
> 4.  George Washington - for obvious reasons
> 
> 5.  Abe Lincoln - saved the Union
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saying Lincoln saved the Union is like saying Obama saved us from the Ebola his lame ass border control policies allowed in here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems we had a Union after Lincoln ...was that an accident?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the union needs to be held together by force, violence and threat of violence, it isn't much of a union.  Had we lost the Revolution would you have hailed King George for saving the empire?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Probably
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well kudos for being honest.
Click to expand...


Yeah...we should take note of it, since it is the only honest thing I have seen him post.  

With that post, he is admitting he is a dupe for the state.  Whatever the state tells him is the truth, he will believe.


----------



## Dan Daly

Unkotare said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mao saved China...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure?
Click to expand...


I was thinking that Mao kept China united by winning...but then thought is wasn't the best analogy.  Guess I didn't delete it like I thought I did.  See, I can admit my own mistakes.

But using that line of reasoning, if Lincoln is to be worshiped for saving the Union, should  Assad be just as worshiped for saving Syria?


----------



## Unkotare

gipper said:


> Killing 850,000 Americans and destroying half the nation is entirely indefensible.  It is treasonous....




A treason committed by the Confederate dogs. All those deaths are on their heads. On the very brink of war, Lincoln supported a Constitutional Amendment that would have guaranteed the institution of slavery in perpetuity in those states where it already existed. Ironically, this would have been the 13th Amendment(!) In an attempt at avoiding armed conflict, he sent only provisions and not ammunition to resupply Fort Sumter. The traitors fired upon the federal garrison anyway. The dogs wanted their war and they would have it no matter what. Well, they got it. An unconscionable number of brave men were led to their deaths because of the obstinate, arrogant fools leading the Confederacy who were willing to sacrifice any number of lives for the sake of evil.


----------



## Unkotare

Dan Daly said:


> But using that line of reasoning, if Lincoln is to be worshiped for saving the Union, should  Assad be just as worshiped for saving Syria?




The two countries, circumstances, and forms of government (to mention but a few factors) are in no way similar. Another false analogy by you. Why don't you try arguing without relying on analogy for a change? You're not very good at this approach.


----------



## Unkotare

Dan Daly said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't managed to refute the analogy ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I did, by pointing out to you that the situation was in no way analogous to two individuals deciding not to remain married. Your only response was to try and extend an already false analogy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you did was point out your opinion....
Click to expand...



No, I pointed out specific facts and historical details. Did you even read what I posted?


----------



## Dan Daly

Dan Daly said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mao saved China...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea where that came from.
Click to expand...




Unkotare said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Killing 850,000 Americans and destroying half the nation is entirely indefensible.  It is treasonous....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A treason committed by the Confederate dogs. All those deaths are on their heads. On the very brink of war, Lincoln supported a Constitutional Amendment that would have guaranteed the institution of slavery in perpetuity in those states where it already existed. Ironically, this would have been the 13th Amendment(!) In an attempt at avoiding armed conflict, he sent only provisions and not ammunition to resupply Fort Sumter. The traitors fired upon the federal garrison anyway. The dogs wanted their war and they would have it no matter what. Well, they got it. An unconscionable number of brave men were led to their deaths because of the obstinate, arrogant fools leading the Confederacy who were willing to sacrifice any number of lives for the sake of evil.
Click to expand...


And we could have just let em go to inevitably founder of their own devices...but of course that never crosses the mind of tyrants and abusive, possessive husbands, does it.


----------



## Unkotare

Dan Daly said:


> abusive, possessive husbands, does it.




Let it go. That analogy is a dead horse by now. You're just making yourself look like an idiot by trying to ride it.


----------



## Dan Daly

Unkotare said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> But using that line of reasoning, if Lincoln is to be worshiped for saving the Union, should  Assad be just as worshiped for saving Syria?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The two countries, circumstances, and forms of government (to mention but a few factors) are in no way similar. Another false analogy by you. Why don't you try arguing without relying on analogy for a change? You're not very good at this approach.
Click to expand...


I can understand that you must compensate for your inability to refute an analogy by acting like a spoiled child by hollering "LA LA LA" and holding your breath....but if you think it makes you look intelligent, you are as deluded as you are impotent.  

That you don't understand how the analogy fits only proves that you have your head firmly up your ass beyond possible extraction.


----------



## Dan Daly

Unkotare said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> abusive, possessive husbands, does it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let it go. That analogy is a dead horse by now. You're just making yourself look like an idiot by trying to ride it.
Click to expand...


You keep showing your impotence by not being able to refute it with anything other than "because I said so".   You can bluff and bluster and stomp your feet all day, but it will not change the fact that the idiot is in your mirror.


----------



## Unkotare

Dan Daly said:


> hollering "LA LA LA" and holding your breath.......




I keep telling you in detail why your half-baked analogies don't hold up, and you keep responding with nonsense like that. Are you even reading the replies, or just having a conversation with the voices inside your head?


----------



## Unkotare

Dan Daly said:


> not being able to refute it with anything other than "because I said so".   ...




I have yet to say that, no matter how many times you insist that I have. What the hell are you smoking, kid?


----------



## gipper

Unkotare said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Killing 850,000 Americans and destroying half the nation is entirely indefensible.  It is treasonous....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A treason committed by the Confederate dogs. All those deaths are on their heads. On the very brink of war, Lincoln supported a Constitutional Amendment that would have guaranteed the institution of slavery in perpetuity in those states where it already existed. Ironically, this would have been the 13th Amendment(!) In an attempt at avoiding armed conflict, he sent only provisions and not ammunition to resupply Fort Sumter. The traitors fired upon the federal garrison anyway. The dogs wanted their war and they would have it no matter what. Well, they got it. An unconscionable number of brave men were led to their deaths because of the obstinate, arrogant fools leading the Confederacy who were willing to sacrifice any number of lives for the sake of evil.
Click to expand...


Oh brother, not this BS hateful argument again.

You see the tyranny in FDR's imprisonment of the Japanese Americans, but fail to see that Lincoln's actions were much worse.  One could conclude you think the rights of Japanese Americans are much more important than Southerns.  

Lincoln terminated American's rights to self determination...and so much more.  Successive presidents used Lincoln's tyrannies to promote their tyrannies...for example, FDR's illegal actions against the Japanese Americans.

Lincoln could have easily avoided war by letting the South secede.  He chose war because he was a murderous tyrant.


----------



## rightwinger

What made Lincoln a great President is that when confronted with a catastrophic situation, he did what needed to be done. Drastic times call for drastic measures. He saw the big picture which was to preserve the union. He faced petty politics and severe ridicule and opposition yet still stayed the course. He understood the politics of the situation, the role Europe would play and the impact that slavery was having on our nation

Unlike most of his contemporaries, Lincoln understood the politics of the situation and restored the union

Truly our best President


----------



## heirtothewind

Dan Daly said:


> I often wonder why Lincoln is so revered.  If you and I were married and you wanted a divorce, would you give me your undying love and loyalty if I used force to prevent you from leaving me and destroyed all your stuff in the process?
> 
> Lincoln proved that we are not a free nation, because free nations don't need to be held together by force.




Thank you for this very interesting, though controversial, point of view.  We do, indeed, tend to worship Lincoln rather blindly.  Your point would make a good doctoral dissertation.


----------



## Dan Daly

Unkotare said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> not being able to refute it with anything other than "because I said so".   ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have yet to say that, no matter how many times you insist that I have. What the hell are you smoking, kid?
Click to expand...


"Don't bring up family and don't make false analogies."
"It's a false analogy because it's a false analogy."
"Attempting to draw out the analogy only highlights how inapplicable it is, dopey."

Where's the beef, boy? 

The analogies are united by the notion of keeping a union together by force and violence.  If you dispute that uniting notion, either outline your case why or admit you got nothing but bluster, bluff and bullshit.


----------



## Roadrunner

rightwinger said:


> What made Lincoln a great President is that when confronted with a catastrophic situation, he did what needed to be done. Drastic times call for drastic measures. He saw the big picture which was to preserve the union. He faced petty politics and severe ridicule and opposition yet still stayed the course. He understood the politics of the situation, the role Europe would play and the impact that slavery was having on our nation
> 
> Unlike most of his contemporaries, Lincoln understood the politics of the situation and restored the union
> 
> Truly our best President


He wasn't "confronted by a catastrophic situation", he created it.


----------



## Pogo

Not sure I can think of five but...

Dwight Eisenhower, for his dropping the warning about the "military-industrial-congressional complex" (edited to MIC) on his way out the door.  A remarkably courageous case of speaking truth to power.

FDR, for his taking on of economic disaster and putting in the energy and inspiration he did.

His cousin TR, for his taking on rampant robberbarony and championing the national resources of the earth.

None of them were flawless.


"God help this country when someone sits at this desk who doesn't know as much about the military as I do" -- Ike


----------



## Dan Daly

heirtothewind said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I often wonder why Lincoln is so revered.  If you and I were married and you wanted a divorce, would you give me your undying love and loyalty if I used force to prevent you from leaving me and destroyed all your stuff in the process?
> 
> Lincoln proved that we are not a free nation, because free nations don't need to be held together by force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for this very interesting, though controversial, point of view.  We do, indeed, tend to worship Lincoln rather blindly.  Your point would make a good doctoral dissertation.
Click to expand...


Thank YOU for replying in a rational manner worthy of further discussion, rather than with knee-jerk emotionalism because a sacred cow was gored.


----------



## Dan Daly

Roadrunner said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What made Lincoln a great President is that when confronted with a catastrophic situation, he did what needed to be done. Drastic times call for drastic measures. He saw the big picture which was to preserve the union. He faced petty politics and severe ridicule and opposition yet still stayed the course. He understood the politics of the situation, the role Europe would play and the impact that slavery was having on our nation
> 
> Unlike most of his contemporaries, Lincoln understood the politics of the situation and restored the union
> 
> Truly our best President
> 
> 
> 
> He wasn't "confronted by a catastrophic situation", he created it.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't go so far as to say he created it, but he surely made it worse than it had to be. Bottom line, he was the President and had to make decisions I wouldn't wish on anyone... and stuck with those decisions to their conclusion, which, right or wrong in our hindsight, must be respected.  But respect isn't the same as hero worship.


----------



## rightwinger

Roadrunner said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What made Lincoln a great President is that when confronted with a catastrophic situation, he did what needed to be done. Drastic times call for drastic measures. He saw the big picture which was to preserve the union. He faced petty politics and severe ridicule and opposition yet still stayed the course. He understood the politics of the situation, the role Europe would play and the impact that slavery was having on our nation
> 
> Unlike most of his contemporaries, Lincoln understood the politics of the situation and restored the union
> 
> Truly our best President
> 
> 
> 
> He wasn't "confronted by a catastrophic situation", he created it.
Click to expand...

 Far from it

The South was seceding before he even took office. The confrontation over slavery had been brewing for 50 years


----------



## rightwinger

Pogo said:


> Not sure I can think of five but...
> 
> Dwight Eisenhower, for his dropping the warning about the "military-industrial-congressional complex" (edited to MIC) on his way out the door.  A remarkably courageous case of speaking truth to power.
> 
> FDR, for his taking on of economic disaster and putting in the energy and inspiration he did.
> 
> His cousin TR, for his taking on rampant robberbarony and championing the national resources of the earth.
> 
> None of them were flawless.
> 
> 
> "God help this country when someone sits at this desk who doesn't know as much about the military as I do" -- Ike


----------



## Dan Daly

Pogo said:


> Not sure I can think of five but...
> 
> Dwight Eisenhower, for his dropping the warning about the "military-industrial-congressional complex" (edited to MIC) on his way out the door.  A remarkably courageous case of speaking truth to power.
> 
> FDR, for his taking on of economic disaster and putting in the energy and inspiration he did.
> 
> His cousin TR, for his taking on rampant robberbarony and championing the national resources of the earth.
> 
> None of them were flawless.
> 
> 
> "God help this country when someone sits at this desk who doesn't know as much about the military as I do" -- Ike




I am really torn on Ike.  It's like he was one of our greatest heroes and also one of our greatest disappointments.


----------



## Pogo

Roadrunner said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What made Lincoln a great President is that when confronted with a catastrophic situation, he did what needed to be done. Drastic times call for drastic measures. He saw the big picture which was to preserve the union. He faced petty politics and severe ridicule and opposition yet still stayed the course. He understood the politics of the situation, the role Europe would play and the impact that slavery was having on our nation
> 
> Unlike most of his contemporaries, Lincoln understood the politics of the situation and restored the union
> 
> Truly our best President
> 
> 
> 
> He wasn't "confronted by a catastrophic situation", he created it.
Click to expand...


Hard to see how, since the CSA was formed out of seceded states while Buchanan was still President...


----------



## gipper

rightwinger said:


> What made Lincoln a great President is that when confronted with a catastrophic situation, he did what needed to be done. Drastic times call for drastic measures. He saw the big picture which was to preserve the union. He faced petty politics and severe ridicule and opposition yet still stayed the course. He understood the politics of the situation, the role Europe would play and the impact that slavery was having on our nation
> 
> Unlike most of his contemporaries, Lincoln understood the politics of the situation and restored the union
> 
> Truly our best President



Is it any wonder our political leadership promotes and instigates wars over and over again...with statist dupes like this walking around?


----------



## Dan Daly

Pogo said:


> Hard to see how, since the CSA was formed out of seceded states while Buchanan was still President...



Well to be fair, the early seceding states did so because Lincoln won the election (similar to how some folks freaked once Obama was elected).  South Carolina had a history of being a little quick with the "we're taking our toys and going home" thing.


----------



## Pogo

rightwinger said:


> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What made Lincoln a great President is that when confronted with a catastrophic situation, he did what needed to be done. Drastic times call for drastic measures. He saw the big picture which was to preserve the union. He faced petty politics and severe ridicule and opposition yet still stayed the course. He understood the politics of the situation, the role Europe would play and the impact that slavery was having on our nation
> 
> Unlike most of his contemporaries, Lincoln understood the politics of the situation and restored the union
> 
> Truly our best President
> 
> 
> 
> He wasn't "confronted by a catastrophic situation", he created it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Far from it
> 
> The South was seceding before he even took office. The confrontation over slavery had been brewing for 50 years
Click to expand...


Exactly.  Wanna blame somebody, blame those do-nothing predecessors who allowed it to fester that far.

Pop quiz: in the election of 1860, the Republican candidate was Lincoln and the Democratic candidate was Stephen Douglas.
Which one won the South?

Answer -- neither.
It's not like the warning signs weren't there.


----------



## Dan Daly

gipper said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What made Lincoln a great President is that when confronted with a catastrophic situation, he did what needed to be done. Drastic times call for drastic measures. He saw the big picture which was to preserve the union. He faced petty politics and severe ridicule and opposition yet still stayed the course. He understood the politics of the situation, the role Europe would play and the impact that slavery was having on our nation
> 
> Unlike most of his contemporaries, Lincoln understood the politics of the situation and restored the union
> 
> Truly our best President
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it any wonder our political leadership promotes and instigates wars over and over again...with statist dupes like this walking around?
Click to expand...


Honest statist dupes I can live with...it's the sneaky ones who worry me.


----------



## Dan Daly

Pogo said:


> Exactly. Wanna blame somebody, blame those do-nothing predecessors who allowed it to fester that far.



You can go all the way back to the Constitutional convention and the compromises that were made there and during the subsequent ratification process.  It would be interesting to speculate what we would be today without those compromises and the Constitution.


----------



## rightwinger

Pogo said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What made Lincoln a great President is that when confronted with a catastrophic situation, he did what needed to be done. Drastic times call for drastic measures. He saw the big picture which was to preserve the union. He faced petty politics and severe ridicule and opposition yet still stayed the course. He understood the politics of the situation, the role Europe would play and the impact that slavery was having on our nation
> 
> Unlike most of his contemporaries, Lincoln understood the politics of the situation and restored the union
> 
> Truly our best President
> 
> 
> 
> He wasn't "confronted by a catastrophic situation", he created it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Far from it
> 
> The South was seceding before he even took office. The confrontation over slavery had been brewing for 50 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Wanna blame somebody, blame those do-nothing predecessors who allowed it to fester that far.
> 
> Pop quiz: in the election of 1860, the Republican candidate was Lincoln and the Democratic candidate was Stephen Douglas.
> Which one won the South?
> 
> Answer -- neither.
> It's not like the warning signs weren't there.
Click to expand...

 
The time to resolve the situation peacefully was between 1830 and 1860. Unfortunately, we had a succession of weak Presidents unwilling to use presidential powers to resolve an issue that would break apart the country. Lincoln saw it in his declaration that the nation could not continue to exist as half slave and half free.


----------



## Roadrunner

Dan Daly said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Wanna blame somebody, blame those do-nothing predecessors who allowed it to fester that far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can go all the way back to the Constitutional convention and the compromises that were made there and during the subsequent ratification process.  It would be interesting to speculate what we would be today without those compromises and the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Without those compromise, there would never have been a United States as we know it.


----------



## Roadrunner

rightwinger said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What made Lincoln a great President is that when confronted with a catastrophic situation, he did what needed to be done. Drastic times call for drastic measures. He saw the big picture which was to preserve the union. He faced petty politics and severe ridicule and opposition yet still stayed the course. He understood the politics of the situation, the role Europe would play and the impact that slavery was having on our nation
> 
> Unlike most of his contemporaries, Lincoln understood the politics of the situation and restored the union
> 
> Truly our best President
> 
> 
> 
> He wasn't "confronted by a catastrophic situation", he created it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Far from it
> 
> The South was seceding before he even took office. The confrontation over slavery had been brewing for 50 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Wanna blame somebody, blame those do-nothing predecessors who allowed it to fester that far.
> 
> Pop quiz: in the election of 1860, the Republican candidate was Lincoln and the Democratic candidate was Stephen Douglas.
> Which one won the South?
> 
> Answer -- neither.
> It's not like the warning signs weren't there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The time to resolve the situation peacefully was between 1830 and 1860. Unfortunately, we had a succession of weak Presidents unwilling to use presidential powers to resolve an issue that would break apart the country. Lincoln saw it in his declaration that the nation could not continue to exist as half slave and half free.
Click to expand...

The internal combustion engine would have doomed slavery in a few years anyway, without the bloodshed.

We should have been a bit more patient, it was a dying institution.


----------



## heirtothewind

Opposition to the American Civil War - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Interesting article about opposition  to Civil War.  The North had many textile factories dependent on cotton.  And there was racist fear that freed slaves would head North and work for lower wages.


----------



## Roadrunner

heirtothewind said:


> Opposition to the American Civil War - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Interesting article about opposition  to Civil War.  The North had many textile factories dependent on cotton.  And there was racist fear that freed slaves would head North and work for lower wages.


They did.

Look what happened to the industrial base of the GOUSA, to the cities that armed the Allies in WWII.

Shitholes now, all of them.

They don't call it the Rust Belt for nothing.


----------



## rightwinger

Roadrunner said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What made Lincoln a great President is that when confronted with a catastrophic situation, he did what needed to be done. Drastic times call for drastic measures. He saw the big picture which was to preserve the union. He faced petty politics and severe ridicule and opposition yet still stayed the course. He understood the politics of the situation, the role Europe would play and the impact that slavery was having on our nation
> 
> Unlike most of his contemporaries, Lincoln understood the politics of the situation and restored the union
> 
> Truly our best President
> 
> 
> 
> He wasn't "confronted by a catastrophic situation", he created it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Far from it
> 
> The South was seceding before he even took office. The confrontation over slavery had been brewing for 50 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Wanna blame somebody, blame those do-nothing predecessors who allowed it to fester that far.
> 
> Pop quiz: in the election of 1860, the Republican candidate was Lincoln and the Democratic candidate was Stephen Douglas.
> Which one won the South?
> 
> Answer -- neither.
> It's not like the warning signs weren't there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The time to resolve the situation peacefully was between 1830 and 1860. Unfortunately, we had a succession of weak Presidents unwilling to use presidential powers to resolve an issue that would break apart the country. Lincoln saw it in his declaration that the nation could not continue to exist as half slave and half free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The internal combustion engine would have doomed slavery in a few years anyway, without the bloodshed.
> 
> We should have been a bit more patient, it was a dying institution.
Click to expand...

 
Cotton was picked by hand up until the 1930s
Is that when you would have ended slavery?


----------



## RKMBrown

George Washington... fought for liberty and limited government, setting us on the right path, albeit with some screw ups.

Ronald Reagan... fought for liberty and limited government, set us back on the right path, albeit with some screw ups.

Calvin Coolidge... fought for limited government, set us back on the right path, albeit with some screw ups.

Thomas Jefferson... fought for liberty and limited government, setting us on the right path, albeit with some screw ups.

James Monroe... fought for liberty and limited government, setting us on the right path, albeit with some screw ups.


----------



## rightwinger

RKMBrown said:


> George Washington... fought for liberty and limited government, setting us on the right path, albeit with some screw ups.
> 
> Ronald Reagan... fought for liberty and limited government, set us back on the right path, albeit with some screw ups.
> 
> Calvin Coolidge... fought for limited government, set us back on the right path, albeit with some screw ups.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson... fought for liberty and limited government, setting us on the right path, albeit with some screw ups.
> 
> James Monroe... fought for liberty and limited government, setting us on the right path, albeit with some screw ups.


 
"Limited Government"


----------



## norwegen

heirtothewind said:


> GEORGE WASHINGTON- set precedents for use of executive power


This is not admiration for George Washington; it's admiration for the first president.


----------



## norwegen

These are the five I admire most, in order of preference:

1.  Thomas Jefferson:  a Libertarian and Republican of the first order who commanded the smallest and most limited administration in America's history.

2.  James Madison:  a peerless constitutionalist who despised rule by popular edict.

3.  Calvin Coolidge:  the last president to pay down the national debt: the definitive conservative who, as Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. says, "did not seem to care what was written about him."

4.  Ronald Reagan:  the rare conservative whose popularity could advance his political campaigns and subsequently the morale, prosperity, and freedom of the people.

5.  Abraham Lincoln: regarded republicanism as more moral than legal, and appreciated America's commitment to its morality as communicated in the Declaration of Independence.


----------



## RKMBrown

rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> George Washington... fought for liberty and limited government, setting us on the right path, albeit with some screw ups.
> 
> Ronald Reagan... fought for liberty and limited government, set us back on the right path, albeit with some screw ups.
> 
> Calvin Coolidge... fought for limited government, set us back on the right path, albeit with some screw ups.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson... fought for liberty and limited government, setting us on the right path, albeit with some screw ups.
> 
> James Monroe... fought for liberty and limited government, setting us on the right path, albeit with some screw ups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Limited Government"
Click to expand...

So you are arguing that these conservatives were for "big" government like the democrats?  HUH ROFL


----------



## rightwinger

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> George Washington... fought for liberty and limited government, setting us on the right path, albeit with some screw ups.
> 
> Ronald Reagan... fought for liberty and limited government, set us back on the right path, albeit with some screw ups.
> 
> Calvin Coolidge... fought for limited government, set us back on the right path, albeit with some screw ups.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson... fought for liberty and limited government, setting us on the right path, albeit with some screw ups.
> 
> James Monroe... fought for liberty and limited government, setting us on the right path, albeit with some screw ups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Limited Government"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are arguing that these conservatives were for "big" government like the democrats?  HUH ROFL
Click to expand...

 
I believe those that you listed all instituted "Big Government"
Reagan expanded the size and scope of the federal government. Jefferson and Monroe sought to expand the size and the power of the US
Coolidge just didn't want any part of acting like a President


----------



## RKMBrown

rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> George Washington... fought for liberty and limited government, setting us on the right path, albeit with some screw ups.
> 
> Ronald Reagan... fought for liberty and limited government, set us back on the right path, albeit with some screw ups.
> 
> Calvin Coolidge... fought for limited government, set us back on the right path, albeit with some screw ups.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson... fought for liberty and limited government, setting us on the right path, albeit with some screw ups.
> 
> James Monroe... fought for liberty and limited government, setting us on the right path, albeit with some screw ups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Limited Government"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are arguing that these conservatives were for "big" government like the democrats?  HUH ROFL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe those that you listed all instituted "Big Government"
> Reagan expanded the size and scope of the federal government. Jefferson and Monroe sought to expand the size and the power of the US
> Coolidge just didn't want any part of acting like a President
Click to expand...


Note the part where I said.. albeit with some screw ups.  The OP didn't ask us to name five perfect presidents.

But, yes I understand that your marxists love to cite any thing these guys did as your excuse to redistribute wealth into your pocket.


----------



## rightwinger

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> George Washington... fought for liberty and limited government, setting us on the right path, albeit with some screw ups.
> 
> Ronald Reagan... fought for liberty and limited government, set us back on the right path, albeit with some screw ups.
> 
> Calvin Coolidge... fought for limited government, set us back on the right path, albeit with some screw ups.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson... fought for liberty and limited government, setting us on the right path, albeit with some screw ups.
> 
> James Monroe... fought for liberty and limited government, setting us on the right path, albeit with some screw ups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Limited Government"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are arguing that these conservatives were for "big" government like the democrats?  HUH ROFL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe those that you listed all instituted "Big Government"
> Reagan expanded the size and scope of the federal government. Jefferson and Monroe sought to expand the size and the power of the US
> Coolidge just didn't want any part of acting like a President
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Note the part where I said.. albeit with some screw ups.  The OP didn't ask us to name five perfect presidents.
> 
> But, yes I understand that your marxists love to cite any thing these guys did as your excuse to redistribute wealth into your pocket.
Click to expand...

 
_But, yes I understand that your marxists love to cite any thing these guys did as your excuse to redistribute wealth into your pocket_

Sounds impressive to the Rush Limbaugh branch of the party...but you have no basis in fact for your hyperbole


----------



## Roadrunner

Dan Daly said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure I can think of five but...
> 
> Dwight Eisenhower, for his dropping the warning about the "military-industrial-congressional complex" (edited to MIC) on his way out the door.  A remarkably courageous case of speaking truth to power.
> 
> FDR, for his taking on of economic disaster and putting in the energy and inspiration he did.
> 
> His cousin TR, for his taking on rampant robberbarony and championing the national resources of the earth.
> 
> None of them were flawless.
> 
> 
> "God help this country when someone sits at this desk who doesn't know as much about the military as I do" -- Ike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am really torn on Ike.  It's like he was one of our greatest heroes and also one of our greatest disappointments.
Click to expand...


Ike talked the talk about taking on the MIC, but he didn't walk the walk.

A great organizer, he never spent a minute in combat like old Terry Allen.

Now that was a General!


----------



## Roadrunner

Dan Daly said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to see how, since the CSA was formed out of seceded states while Buchanan was still President...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well to be fair, the early seceding states did so because Lincoln won the election (similar to how some folks freaked once Obama was elected).  South Carolina had a history of being a little quick with the "we're taking our toys and going home" thing.
Click to expand...

We needed a Jackson to tell SC to cool their heels.

But Lincoln wanted war, as proved by the Ft. Sumter provocation, which SC hotheads fell for.


----------



## RKMBrown

rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> George Washington... fought for liberty and limited government, setting us on the right path, albeit with some screw ups.
> 
> Ronald Reagan... fought for liberty and limited government, set us back on the right path, albeit with some screw ups.
> 
> Calvin Coolidge... fought for limited government, set us back on the right path, albeit with some screw ups.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson... fought for liberty and limited government, setting us on the right path, albeit with some screw ups.
> 
> James Monroe... fought for liberty and limited government, setting us on the right path, albeit with some screw ups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Limited Government"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are arguing that these conservatives were for "big" government like the democrats?  HUH ROFL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe those that you listed all instituted "Big Government"
> Reagan expanded the size and scope of the federal government. Jefferson and Monroe sought to expand the size and the power of the US
> Coolidge just didn't want any part of acting like a President
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Note the part where I said.. albeit with some screw ups.  The OP didn't ask us to name five perfect presidents.
> 
> But, yes I understand that your marxists love to cite any thing these guys did as your excuse to redistribute wealth into your pocket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _But, yes I understand that your marxists love to cite any thing these guys did as your excuse to redistribute wealth into your pocket_
> 
> Sounds impressive to the Rush Limbaugh branch of the party...but you have no basis in fact for your hyperbole
Click to expand...

ROFL yeah cause democrats are for limited government ROFLFLLLLFLFLLLOOOTOFLLL


----------



## rightwinger

Roadrunner said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure I can think of five but...
> 
> Dwight Eisenhower, for his dropping the warning about the "military-industrial-congressional complex" (edited to MIC) on his way out the door.  A remarkably courageous case of speaking truth to power.
> 
> FDR, for his taking on of economic disaster and putting in the energy and inspiration he did.
> 
> His cousin TR, for his taking on rampant robberbarony and championing the national resources of the earth.
> 
> None of them were flawless.
> 
> 
> "God help this country when someone sits at this desk who doesn't know as much about the military as I do" -- Ike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am really torn on Ike.  It's like he was one of our greatest heroes and also one of our greatest disappointments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ike talked the talk about taking on the MIC, but he didn't walk the walk.
> 
> A great organizer, he never spent a minute in combat like old Terry Allen.
> 
> Now that was a General!
Click to expand...

 
Why would a five star general spend time in combat?


----------



## Unkotare

gipper said:


> You see the tyranny in FDR's imprisonment of the Japanese Americans, but fail to see that Lincoln's actions were much worse.  One could conclude you think the rights of Japanese Americans are much more important than Southerns. ...




That makes absolutely no sense. Japanese Americans were not trying to destroy the country. They had not taken up arms against the country, and certainly weren't enslaving other people within the country. You are posting out of ill-considered emotion.


----------



## Unkotare

gipper said:


> Lincoln could have easily avoided war by letting the South secede.  He chose war because he was a murderous tyrant.




Again, nonsense. Preserve the country by destroying the country? What are you, a democrat? He saved the Union. All deaths in that war are on the heads of the traitorous dogs of the Confederacy.


----------



## Unkotare

heirtothewind said:


> Your point would make a good doctoral dissertation.




....at Little Tykes Preschool University.


----------



## RKMBrown

Unkotare said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see the tyranny in FDR's imprisonment of the Japanese Americans, but fail to see that Lincoln's actions were much worse.  One could conclude you think the rights of Japanese Americans are much more important than Southerns. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes absolutely no sense. Japanese Americans were not trying to destroy the country. They had not taken up arms against the country, and certainly weren't enslaving other people within the country. You are posting out of ill-considered emotion.
Click to expand...

No you are the one posting out of ill-considered emotion.  99% of the people in the south did not own a single slave.


----------



## Unkotare

Dan Daly said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> not being able to refute it with anything other than "because I said so".   ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have yet to say that, no matter how many times you insist that I have. What the hell are you smoking, kid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Don't bring up family and don't make false analogies."
> "It's a false analogy because it's a false analogy."
> "Attempting to draw out the analogy only highlights how inapplicable it is, dopey."
> 
> Where's the beef, boy?...
Click to expand...



In all the parts you didn't quote. You know this.


----------



## Unkotare

RKMBrown said:


> 99% of the people in the south did not own a single slave.




Exactly. Their courage and loyalty was used by opportunistic, arrogant, short-sighted dogs to engage in treason and lead good men to their deaths for an evil cause.


----------



## rightwinger

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Limited Government"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are arguing that these conservatives were for "big" government like the democrats?  HUH ROFL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe those that you listed all instituted "Big Government"
> Reagan expanded the size and scope of the federal government. Jefferson and Monroe sought to expand the size and the power of the US
> Coolidge just didn't want any part of acting like a President
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Note the part where I said.. albeit with some screw ups.  The OP didn't ask us to name five perfect presidents.
> 
> But, yes I understand that your marxists love to cite any thing these guys did as your excuse to redistribute wealth into your pocket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _But, yes I understand that your marxists love to cite any thing these guys did as your excuse to redistribute wealth into your pocket_
> 
> Sounds impressive to the Rush Limbaugh branch of the party...but you have no basis in fact for your hyperbole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL yeah cause democrats are for limited government ROFLFLLLLFLFLLLOOOTOFLLL
Click to expand...

 
Democrats are for a right sized government


----------



## Unkotare

Dan Daly said:


> The analogies are united by the notion of keeping a union together by force and violence. ...




Your analogy fails because you are trying to compare unlike things. How many times do you need this explained to you, kid?


----------



## rightwinger

RKMBrown said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see the tyranny in FDR's imprisonment of the Japanese Americans, but fail to see that Lincoln's actions were much worse.  One could conclude you think the rights of Japanese Americans are much more important than Southerns. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes absolutely no sense. Japanese Americans were not trying to destroy the country. They had not taken up arms against the country, and certainly weren't enslaving other people within the country. You are posting out of ill-considered emotion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you are the one posting out of ill-considered emotion.  99% of the people in the south did not own a single slave.
Click to expand...

 
Yes, but 40% of the population WERE slaves


----------



## Unkotare

Pogo said:


> Wanna blame somebody, blame those do-nothing predecessors who allowed it to fester that far....




It wasn't "allowed to fester." Statesmen crafted compromise after compromise in an attempt to deal with what was ultimately an unresolvable contradiction in the very fabric of our nation.


----------



## RKMBrown

rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are arguing that these conservatives were for "big" government like the democrats?  HUH ROFL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe those that you listed all instituted "Big Government"
> Reagan expanded the size and scope of the federal government. Jefferson and Monroe sought to expand the size and the power of the US
> Coolidge just didn't want any part of acting like a President
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Note the part where I said.. albeit with some screw ups.  The OP didn't ask us to name five perfect presidents.
> 
> But, yes I understand that your marxists love to cite any thing these guys did as your excuse to redistribute wealth into your pocket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _But, yes I understand that your marxists love to cite any thing these guys did as your excuse to redistribute wealth into your pocket_
> 
> Sounds impressive to the Rush Limbaugh branch of the party...but you have no basis in fact for your hyperbole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL yeah cause democrats are for limited government ROFLFLLLLFLFLLLOOOTOFLLL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democrats are for a right sized government
Click to expand...

So are libertarians and republicans.


----------



## WelfareQueen

TheOldSchool said:


> 1.  Teddy Roosevelt - the most badass of all Presidents.  We could use someone with his stones today.
> 
> 2.  James Monroe - the Monroe doctrine should never have been abandoned
> 
> 3.  Thomas Jefferson - founding father, declaration of independence, Louisiana purchase
> 
> 4.  George Washington - for obvious reasons
> 
> 5.  Abe Lincoln - saved the Union





The perfect list imho.  Agree completely.  


I would include some folks close to these guys.


1.  James K. Polk.  Greatest one term President in U.S. History.  Basically acquired 1/2 the U.S. in 4 years.  No bullshit.  Tough but fair.  Literally worked himself to death.  


2.  James Madison.  Greatest political genius in U.S. History.


3.  Harry Truman.  Made the tough decisions no one would want to make.  Truly accountable.  


4.  FDR.  Tremendous leader.


5.  Andrew Jackson.  Tough SOB who genuinely stood up for the common man.  Hated the big money oligarchs that have always tried to run our Country.


----------



## RKMBrown

rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see the tyranny in FDR's imprisonment of the Japanese Americans, but fail to see that Lincoln's actions were much worse.  One could conclude you think the rights of Japanese Americans are much more important than Southerns. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes absolutely no sense. Japanese Americans were not trying to destroy the country. They had not taken up arms against the country, and certainly weren't enslaving other people within the country. You are posting out of ill-considered emotion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you are the one posting out of ill-considered emotion.  99% of the people in the south did not own a single slave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but 40% of the population WERE slaves
Click to expand...

That sounds like a number pulled out of a hat... ROFL link?


----------



## Roadrunner

RKMBrown said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see the tyranny in FDR's imprisonment of the Japanese Americans, but fail to see that Lincoln's actions were much worse.  One could conclude you think the rights of Japanese Americans are much more important than Southerns. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes absolutely no sense. Japanese Americans were not trying to destroy the country. They had not taken up arms against the country, and certainly weren't enslaving other people within the country. You are posting out of ill-considered emotion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you are the one posting out of ill-considered emotion.  99% of the people in the south did not own a single slave.
Click to expand...

I think you are a bit off, but not that far off.

Funny thing about slavery, and the master/slave relationship.

My great however many greats grandfathers slaves stayed right there with him after emancipation, and took his name.

Many still proudly bear that name, even though they know it traces back to Georgia and another time.


----------



## Unkotare

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see the tyranny in FDR's imprisonment of the Japanese Americans, but fail to see that Lincoln's actions were much worse.  One could conclude you think the rights of Japanese Americans are much more important than Southerns. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes absolutely no sense. Japanese Americans were not trying to destroy the country. They had not taken up arms against the country, and certainly weren't enslaving other people within the country. You are posting out of ill-considered emotion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you are the one posting out of ill-considered emotion.  99% of the people in the south did not own a single slave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but 40% of the population WERE slaves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sounds like a number pulled out of a hat... ROFL link?
Click to expand...



There were 9 million people in the Confederacy, and about 4 million of those were African American slaves.


----------



## Roadrunner

WelfareQueen said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Teddy Roosevelt - the most badass of all Presidents.  We could use someone with his stones today.
> 
> 2.  James Monroe - the Monroe doctrine should never have been abandoned
> 
> 3.  Thomas Jefferson - founding father, declaration of independence, Louisiana purchase
> 
> 4.  George Washington - for obvious reasons
> 
> 5.  Abe Lincoln - saved the Union
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The perfect list imho.  Agree completely.
> 
> 
> I would include some folks close to these guys.
> 
> 
> 1.  James K. Polk.  Greatest one term President in U.S. History.  Basically acquired 1/2 the U.S. in 4 years.  No bullshit.  Tough but fair.  Literally worked himself to death.
> 
> 
> 2.  James Madison.  Greatest political genius in U.S. History.
> 
> 
> 3.  Harry Truman.  Made the tough decisions no one would want to make.  Truly accountable.
> 
> 
> 4.  FDR.  Tremendous leader.
> 
> 
> 5.  Andrew Jackson.  Tough SOB who genuinely stood up for the common man.  Hated the big money oligarchs that have always tried to run our Country.
Click to expand...



Geez, how did I leave out Madison, and post only four.

Must be senility setting in.

Yes, by all means Madison, the Father of the Constitution.


----------



## rightwinger

WelfareQueen said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Teddy Roosevelt - the most badass of all Presidents.  We could use someone with his stones today.
> 
> 2.  James Monroe - the Monroe doctrine should never have been abandoned
> 
> 3.  Thomas Jefferson - founding father, declaration of independence, Louisiana purchase
> 
> 4.  George Washington - for obvious reasons
> 
> 5.  Abe Lincoln - saved the Union
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The perfect list imho.  Agree completely.
> 
> 
> I would include some folks close to these guys.
> 
> 
> 1.  James K. Polk.  Greatest one term President in U.S. History.  Basically acquired 1/2 the U.S. in 4 years.  No bullshit.  Tough but fair.  Literally worked himself to death.
> 
> 
> 2.  James Madison.  Greatest political genius in U.S. History.
> 
> 
> 3.  Harry Truman.  Made the tough decisions no one would want to make.  Truly accountable.
> 
> 
> 4.  FDR.  Tremendous leader.
> 
> 
> 5.  Andrew Jackson.  Tough SOB who genuinely stood up for the common man.  Hated the big money oligarchs that have always tried to run our Country.
Click to expand...

 
Madison almost lost the country with his war with England and attempts to capture Canada. Far from a great President


----------



## RKMBrown

Roadrunner said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see the tyranny in FDR's imprisonment of the Japanese Americans, but fail to see that Lincoln's actions were much worse.  One could conclude you think the rights of Japanese Americans are much more important than Southerns. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes absolutely no sense. Japanese Americans were not trying to destroy the country. They had not taken up arms against the country, and certainly weren't enslaving other people within the country. You are posting out of ill-considered emotion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you are the one posting out of ill-considered emotion.  99% of the people in the south did not own a single slave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are a bit off, but not that far off.
> 
> Funny thing about slavery, and the master/slave relationship.
> 
> My great however many greats grandfathers slaves stayed right there with him after emancipation, and took his name.
> 
> Many still proudly bear that name, even though they know it traces back to Georgia and another time.
Click to expand...

Ayup.. slavery in and of itself is not necessarily an evil thing.  Trading labor for transport, food, and lodging... sounds like an employment contract.  Some forms of slavery are the direct equivalent of payroll taxes and other forms of payroll withdrawals that are done today.


----------



## rightwinger

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see the tyranny in FDR's imprisonment of the Japanese Americans, but fail to see that Lincoln's actions were much worse.  One could conclude you think the rights of Japanese Americans are much more important than Southerns. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes absolutely no sense. Japanese Americans were not trying to destroy the country. They had not taken up arms against the country, and certainly weren't enslaving other people within the country. You are posting out of ill-considered emotion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you are the one posting out of ill-considered emotion.  99% of the people in the south did not own a single slave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but 40% of the population WERE slaves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sounds like a number pulled out of a hat... ROFL link?
Click to expand...

 Like the Great Casey Stengle used to say.......you could look it up


----------



## rightwinger

RKMBrown said:


> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see the tyranny in FDR's imprisonment of the Japanese Americans, but fail to see that Lincoln's actions were much worse.  One could conclude you think the rights of Japanese Americans are much more important than Southerns. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes absolutely no sense. Japanese Americans were not trying to destroy the country. They had not taken up arms against the country, and certainly weren't enslaving other people within the country. You are posting out of ill-considered emotion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you are the one posting out of ill-considered emotion.  99% of the people in the south did not own a single slave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are a bit off, but not that far off.
> 
> Funny thing about slavery, and the master/slave relationship.
> 
> My great however many greats grandfathers slaves stayed right there with him after emancipation, and took his name.
> 
> Many still proudly bear that name, even though they know it traces back to Georgia and another time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ayup.. slavery in and of itself is not necessarily an evil thing.  Trading labor for transport, food, and lodging... sounds like an employment contract.  Some forms of slavery are the direct equivalent of payroll taxes and other forms of payroll withdrawals that are done today.
Click to expand...

 
A contract requires agreement of both parties


----------



## Roadrunner

rightwinger said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Teddy Roosevelt - the most badass of all Presidents.  We could use someone with his stones today.
> 
> 2.  James Monroe - the Monroe doctrine should never have been abandoned
> 
> 3.  Thomas Jefferson - founding father, declaration of independence, Louisiana purchase
> 
> 4.  George Washington - for obvious reasons
> 
> 5.  Abe Lincoln - saved the Union
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The perfect list imho.  Agree completely.
> 
> 
> I would include some folks close to these guys.
> 
> 
> 1.  James K. Polk.  Greatest one term President in U.S. History.  Basically acquired 1/2 the U.S. in 4 years.  No bullshit.  Tough but fair.  Literally worked himself to death.
> 
> 
> 2.  James Madison.  Greatest political genius in U.S. History.
> 
> 
> 3.  Harry Truman.  Made the tough decisions no one would want to make.  Truly accountable.
> 
> 
> 4.  FDR.  Tremendous leader.
> 
> 
> 5.  Andrew Jackson.  Tough SOB who genuinely stood up for the common man.  Hated the big money oligarchs that have always tried to run our Country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Madison almost lost the country with his war with England and attempts to capture Canada. Far from a great President
Click to expand...




rightwinger said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Teddy Roosevelt - the most badass of all Presidents.  We could use someone with his stones today.
> 
> 2.  James Monroe - the Monroe doctrine should never have been abandoned
> 
> 3.  Thomas Jefferson - founding father, declaration of independence, Louisiana purchase
> 
> 4.  George Washington - for obvious reasons
> 
> 5.  Abe Lincoln - saved the Union
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The perfect list imho.  Agree completely.
> 
> 
> I would include some folks close to these guys.
> 
> 
> 1.  James K. Polk.  Greatest one term President in U.S. History.  Basically acquired 1/2 the U.S. in 4 years.  No bullshit.  Tough but fair.  Literally worked himself to death.
> 
> 
> 2.  James Madison.  Greatest political genius in U.S. History.
> 
> 
> 3.  Harry Truman.  Made the tough decisions no one would want to make.  Truly accountable.
> 
> 
> 4.  FDR.  Tremendous leader.
> 
> 
> 5.  Andrew Jackson.  Tough SOB who genuinely stood up for the common man.  Hated the big money oligarchs that have always tried to run our Country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Madison almost lost the country with his war with England and attempts to capture Canada. Far from a great President
Click to expand...



Not the greatest President, but, surely among the top five great Americans, because of the Constitution.


----------



## RKMBrown

rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see the tyranny in FDR's imprisonment of the Japanese Americans, but fail to see that Lincoln's actions were much worse.  One could conclude you think the rights of Japanese Americans are much more important than Southerns. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes absolutely no sense. Japanese Americans were not trying to destroy the country. They had not taken up arms against the country, and certainly weren't enslaving other people within the country. You are posting out of ill-considered emotion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you are the one posting out of ill-considered emotion.  99% of the people in the south did not own a single slave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are a bit off, but not that far off.
> 
> Funny thing about slavery, and the master/slave relationship.
> 
> My great however many greats grandfathers slaves stayed right there with him after emancipation, and took his name.
> 
> Many still proudly bear that name, even though they know it traces back to Georgia and another time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ayup.. slavery in and of itself is not necessarily an evil thing.  Trading labor for transport, food, and lodging... sounds like an employment contract.  Some forms of slavery are the direct equivalent of payroll taxes and other forms of payroll withdrawals that are done today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A contract requires agreement of both parties
Click to expand...

Ayup... forced contract, like forced payroll tax, that would be an evil part.


----------



## Roadrunner

Unkotare said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wanna blame somebody, blame those do-nothing predecessors who allowed it to fester that far....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't "allowed to fester." Statesmen crafted compromise after compromise in an attempt to deal with what was ultimately an unresolvable contradiction in the very fabric of our nation.
Click to expand...

It was slowly being restricted.

It would have ended when the internal combustion engine made it non-profitable.


----------



## longknife

Well, the top of my list is Harry Truman - he was never given the respect he deserved and was attacked just as about as vile as any other. He took office under terrible conditions and had been totally kept out of the loop by FDR. He had some agonizing decisions to make and did so with integrity. Even as he lived in poverty in retirement, he continued to uphold his beliefs and begged for nothing from anybody.

The rest? GWB I and II, Raegan, and Ford


----------



## Pogo

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see the tyranny in FDR's imprisonment of the Japanese Americans, but fail to see that Lincoln's actions were much worse.  One could conclude you think the rights of Japanese Americans are much more important than Southerns. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes absolutely no sense. Japanese Americans were not trying to destroy the country. They had not taken up arms against the country, and certainly weren't enslaving other people within the country. You are posting out of ill-considered emotion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you are the one posting out of ill-considered emotion.  99% of the people in the south did not own a single slave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but 40% of the population WERE slaves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sounds like a number pulled out of a hat... ROFL link?
Click to expand...


From the same guy who posted:


RKMBrown said:


> 99% of the people in the south did not own a single slave.



Irony meter pegged.


Math juuuuuust a bit off too...
>>  Almost one-third of all Southern families owned slaves. In Mississippi and South Carolina it approached one half.  The total number of slave owners was 385,000 in 1860. Here are the percentages of slaveowning families as a fraction of total free households:

Mississippi: 49%
South Carolina: 46%
Georgia: 37%
Alabama: 35%
Florida: 34%
Louisiana: 29%
Texas: 28%
North Carolina: 28%
Virginia: 26%
Tennessee: 25%
Kentucky: 23%
Arkansas: 20%
Missouri: 13%
Maryland: 12%
Delaware: 3%  << (more at the page)​

Pray, what kind of mallet to you use to bang this into "99% did not own slaves"?


----------



## heirtothewind

RKMBrown said:


> George Washington... fought for liberty and limited government, setting us on the right path, albeit with some screw ups.
> 
> Ronald Reagan... fought for liberty and limited government, set us back on the right path, albeit with some screw ups.
> 
> Calvin Coolidge... fought for limited government, set us back on the right path, albeit with some screw ups.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson... fought for liberty and limited government, setting us on the right path, albeit with some screw ups.
> 
> James Monroe... fought for liberty and limited government, setting us on the right path, albeit with some screw ups.




Conservatives extol ''limited government'' --- but they never refuse social security or medicare, and they don't refuse federal aid when tornadoes, hurricanes, or other disasters strike.  They benefit from the protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act and many other federal laws relating to health, education, welfare, and safety.  They don't refuse workers' comp or unemployment benefits.


----------



## rightwinger

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That makes absolutely no sense. Japanese Americans were not trying to destroy the country. They had not taken up arms against the country, and certainly weren't enslaving other people within the country. You are posting out of ill-considered emotion.
> 
> 
> 
> No you are the one posting out of ill-considered emotion.  99% of the people in the south did not own a single slave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are a bit off, but not that far off.
> 
> Funny thing about slavery, and the master/slave relationship.
> 
> My great however many greats grandfathers slaves stayed right there with him after emancipation, and took his name.
> 
> Many still proudly bear that name, even though they know it traces back to Georgia and another time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ayup.. slavery in and of itself is not necessarily an evil thing.  Trading labor for transport, food, and lodging... sounds like an employment contract.  Some forms of slavery are the direct equivalent of payroll taxes and other forms of payroll withdrawals that are done today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A contract requires agreement of both parties
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ayup... forced contract, like forced payroll tax, that would be an evil part.
Click to expand...

 You get to vote on the taxes you pay....a slave didn't


----------



## RKMBrown

rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see the tyranny in FDR's imprisonment of the Japanese Americans, but fail to see that Lincoln's actions were much worse.  One could conclude you think the rights of Japanese Americans are much more important than Southerns. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes absolutely no sense. Japanese Americans were not trying to destroy the country. They had not taken up arms against the country, and certainly weren't enslaving other people within the country. You are posting out of ill-considered emotion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you are the one posting out of ill-considered emotion.  99% of the people in the south did not own a single slave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but 40% of the population WERE slaves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sounds like a number pulled out of a hat... ROFL link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like the Great Casey Stengle used to say.......you could look it up
Click to expand...

Thanks I looked it up... WOW.  I had no idea the slave population was that massive in the south.  Almost 50% of the population in GA, WOW.  That's messed up.


----------



## Unkotare

RKMBrown said:


> Ayup.. slavery in and of itself is not necessarily an evil thing.  ....




What...the...fuck...

You are hopeless.


----------



## RKMBrown

rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you are the one posting out of ill-considered emotion.  99% of the people in the south did not own a single slave.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are a bit off, but not that far off.
> 
> Funny thing about slavery, and the master/slave relationship.
> 
> My great however many greats grandfathers slaves stayed right there with him after emancipation, and took his name.
> 
> Many still proudly bear that name, even though they know it traces back to Georgia and another time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ayup.. slavery in and of itself is not necessarily an evil thing.  Trading labor for transport, food, and lodging... sounds like an employment contract.  Some forms of slavery are the direct equivalent of payroll taxes and other forms of payroll withdrawals that are done today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A contract requires agreement of both parties
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ayup... forced contract, like forced payroll tax, that would be an evil part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You get to vote on the taxes you pay....a slave didn't
Click to expand...

I get to vote on the taxes I pay in TX.  Federal taxes are not voted on by individual states.  They are mandated by people in DC who are elected by people in NY, California, etc.  Citizens of conservative states are forced into socialism by citizens of marxist states.


----------



## RKMBrown

Unkotare said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ayup.. slavery in and of itself is not necessarily an evil thing.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What...the...fuck...
> 
> You are hopeless.
Click to expand...

Nah you're just too stupid to look up the definition.  Soldiers are essentially slaves to the government after they sign a contract.  From time to time we draft soldiers. The draft is sometimes compulsory.


----------



## Unkotare

RKMBrown said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ayup.. slavery in and of itself is not necessarily an evil thing.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What...the...fuck...
> 
> You are hopeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah you're just too stupid to look up the definition.
Click to expand...



Unlike you, I don't need to look up the definition. English is my first language.


----------



## RKMBrown

Pogo said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see the tyranny in FDR's imprisonment of the Japanese Americans, but fail to see that Lincoln's actions were much worse.  One could conclude you think the rights of Japanese Americans are much more important than Southerns. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes absolutely no sense. Japanese Americans were not trying to destroy the country. They had not taken up arms against the country, and certainly weren't enslaving other people within the country. You are posting out of ill-considered emotion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you are the one posting out of ill-considered emotion.  99% of the people in the south did not own a single slave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but 40% of the population WERE slaves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sounds like a number pulled out of a hat... ROFL link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the same guy who posted:
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 99% of the people in the south did not own a single slave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irony meter pegged.
> 
> 
> Math juuuuuust a bit off too...
> >>  Almost one-third of all Southern families owned slaves. In Mississippi and South Carolina it approached one half.  The total number of slave owners was 385,000 in 1860. Here are the percentages of slaveowning families as a fraction of total free households:
> 
> Mississippi: 49%
> South Carolina: 46%
> Georgia: 37%
> Alabama: 35%
> Florida: 34%
> Louisiana: 29%
> Texas: 28%
> North Carolina: 28%
> Virginia: 26%
> Tennessee: 25%
> Kentucky: 23%
> Arkansas: 20%
> Missouri: 13%
> Maryland: 12%
> Delaware: 3%  << (more at the page)​
> 
> Pray, what kind of mallet to you use to bang this into "99% did not own slaves"?
Click to expand...

I pulled it out of a hat.


----------



## rightwinger

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are a bit off, but not that far off.
> 
> Funny thing about slavery, and the master/slave relationship.
> 
> My great however many greats grandfathers slaves stayed right there with him after emancipation, and took his name.
> 
> Many still proudly bear that name, even though they know it traces back to Georgia and another time.
> 
> 
> 
> Ayup.. slavery in and of itself is not necessarily an evil thing.  Trading labor for transport, food, and lodging... sounds like an employment contract.  Some forms of slavery are the direct equivalent of payroll taxes and other forms of payroll withdrawals that are done today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A contract requires agreement of both parties
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ayup... forced contract, like forced payroll tax, that would be an evil part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You get to vote on the taxes you pay....a slave didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get to vote on the taxes I pay in TX.  Federal taxes are not voted on by individual states.  They are mandated by people in DC who are elected by people in NY, California, etc.  Citizens of conservative states are forced into socialism by citizens of marxist states.
Click to expand...

 Last I saw, Texas has two Senators and a shitload of Congressmen all elected by voters in Texas. So yes, you geta say in what taxes are assessed. That is not socialism...it is democracy at its best


----------



## RKMBrown

rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ayup.. slavery in and of itself is not necessarily an evil thing.  Trading labor for transport, food, and lodging... sounds like an employment contract.  Some forms of slavery are the direct equivalent of payroll taxes and other forms of payroll withdrawals that are done today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A contract requires agreement of both parties
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ayup... forced contract, like forced payroll tax, that would be an evil part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You get to vote on the taxes you pay....a slave didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get to vote on the taxes I pay in TX.  Federal taxes are not voted on by individual states.  They are mandated by people in DC who are elected by people in NY, California, etc.  Citizens of conservative states are forced into socialism by citizens of marxist states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last I saw, Texas has two Senators and a shitload of Congressmen all elected by voters in Texas. So yes, you geta say in what taxes are assessed. That is not socialism...it is democracy at its best
Click to expand...

Yeah we'll we were supposed to be a republic... not a democracy.


----------



## mudwhistle

Dan Daly said:


> I often wonder why Lincoln is so revered.  If you and I were married and you wanted a divorce, would you give me your undying love and loyalty if I used force to prevent you from leaving me and destroyed all your stuff in the process?
> 
> Lincoln proved that we are not a free nation, because free nations don't need to be held together by force.



Pretty generic answer.

When a society is free sometimes people abuse their freedoms.


----------



## rightwinger

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> A contract requires agreement of both parties
> 
> 
> 
> Ayup... forced contract, like forced payroll tax, that would be an evil part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You get to vote on the taxes you pay....a slave didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get to vote on the taxes I pay in TX.  Federal taxes are not voted on by individual states.  They are mandated by people in DC who are elected by people in NY, California, etc.  Citizens of conservative states are forced into socialism by citizens of marxist states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last I saw, Texas has two Senators and a shitload of Congressmen all elected by voters in Texas. So yes, you geta say in what taxes are assessed. That is not socialism...it is democracy at its best
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah we'll we were supposed to be a republic... not a democracy.
Click to expand...

 A Republic is an implementation of Democracy


----------



## mudwhistle

Dan Daly said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I often wonder why Lincoln is so revered. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because he preserved the Union, punished the traitorous Confederate dogs, and set forces in motion that would inevitably and finally end the scourge of slavery in this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you'd beat your wife half to death and force her to stay married to you to preserve your union?  Nice.  Bet the women just loooove you.
Click to expand...


If she was keeping slaves the bitch deserved it.


----------



## gipper

Unkotare said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see the tyranny in FDR's imprisonment of the Japanese Americans, but fail to see that Lincoln's actions were much worse.  One could conclude you think the rights of Japanese Americans are much more important than Southerns. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes absolutely no sense. Japanese Americans were not trying to destroy the country. They had not taken up arms against the country, and certainly weren't enslaving other people within the country. You are posting out of ill-considered emotion.
Click to expand...


It makes a great deal of sense.  FDR's actions were unconstitutional and tyrannical, just as was Lincoln's.  FDR's tyranny may have been less murderous than Lincoln's, but it was still tyranny.  Had the Japanese Americans resisted, they would most certainly have been murdered just as the Southerns were.

FDR believed the Japanese Americans were traitors so he imprisoned them.  Lincoln saw Southerns the same way.  Had the Japanese Americans been as numerous as the Southerns, they would have fought to prevent their imprisonment, as did the Southerns.

Lincoln invaded the South to keep it in the Union.  That is clear to anyone who can think.  So, he destroyed what he wanted to keep...and he did so purely for statist reasons...nothing to do with slavery.


----------



## mudwhistle

Roadrunner said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Washington
> Jefferson
> Lincoln
> Reagan
> W
> 
> 
> 
> I'd have to drop Lincoln.
Click to expand...


Too late. 

Another Democrat beat you to it.


----------



## rightwinger

gipper said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see the tyranny in FDR's imprisonment of the Japanese Americans, but fail to see that Lincoln's actions were much worse.  One could conclude you think the rights of Japanese Americans are much more important than Southerns. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes absolutely no sense. Japanese Americans were not trying to destroy the country. They had not taken up arms against the country, and certainly weren't enslaving other people within the country. You are posting out of ill-considered emotion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It makes a great deal of sense.  FDR's actions were unconstitutional and tyrannical, just as was Lincoln's.  FDR's tyranny may have been less murderous than Lincoln's, but it was still tyranny.  Had the Japanese Americans resisted, they would most certainly have been murdered just as the Southerns were.
> 
> FDR believed the Japanese Americans were traitors so he imprisoned them.  Lincoln saw Southerns the same way.  Had the Japanese Americans been as numerous as the Southerns, they would have fought to prevent their imprisonment, as did the Southerns.
> 
> Lincoln invaded the South to keep it in the Union.  That is clear to anyone who can think.  So, he destroyed what he wanted to keep...and he did so purely for statist reasons...nothing to do with slavery.
Click to expand...

 
FDR was a man of his political times. Very few Americans were willing to stand up for the rights of Japanese Americans in 1942. Congress wasn't, the Supreme Court wasn't and FDR wasn't

In retrospect, it was wrong. In 1942 anti-Japanese hystera it made sense


----------



## Unkotare

RKMBrown said:


> Soldiers are essentially slaves to the government after they sign a contract. ...




NO, they are not.


----------



## RKMBrown

rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ayup... forced contract, like forced payroll tax, that would be an evil part.
> 
> 
> 
> You get to vote on the taxes you pay....a slave didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get to vote on the taxes I pay in TX.  Federal taxes are not voted on by individual states.  They are mandated by people in DC who are elected by people in NY, California, etc.  Citizens of conservative states are forced into socialism by citizens of marxist states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last I saw, Texas has two Senators and a shitload of Congressmen all elected by voters in Texas. So yes, you geta say in what taxes are assessed. That is not socialism...it is democracy at its best
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah we'll we were supposed to be a republic... not a democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A Republic is an implementation of Democracy
Click to expand...

That's like saying tyranny is an implementation of liberty.


----------



## RKMBrown

Unkotare said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Soldiers are essentially slaves to the government after they sign a contract. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, they are not.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are.


----------



## Dan Daly

Unkotare said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> not being able to refute it with anything other than "because I said so".   ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have yet to say that, no matter how many times you insist that I have. What the hell are you smoking, kid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Don't bring up family and don't make false analogies."
> "It's a false analogy because it's a false analogy."
> "Attempting to draw out the analogy only highlights how inapplicable it is, dopey."
> 
> Where's the beef, boy?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In all the parts you didn't quote. You know this.
Click to expand...


Then requote them.  You won't because even you know you are full of shit.


----------



## rightwinger

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You get to vote on the taxes you pay....a slave didn't
> 
> 
> 
> I get to vote on the taxes I pay in TX.  Federal taxes are not voted on by individual states.  They are mandated by people in DC who are elected by people in NY, California, etc.  Citizens of conservative states are forced into socialism by citizens of marxist states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last I saw, Texas has two Senators and a shitload of Congressmen all elected by voters in Texas. So yes, you geta say in what taxes are assessed. That is not socialism...it is democracy at its best
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah we'll we were supposed to be a republic... not a democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A Republic is an implementation of Democracy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's like saying tyranny is an implementation of liberty.
Click to expand...

 Actually it isn't

Try again


----------



## Dan Daly

Unkotare said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The analogies are united by the notion of keeping a union together by force and violence. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your analogy fails because you are trying to compare unlike things. How many times do you need this explained to you, kid?
Click to expand...


So you dispute that in all cases a union is held together by force and violence?  Then dazzle us with your brilliant argument supporting your contention.   But we know you can't...all you can do is introduce straw men that have nothing to do with the unifying premise in some lame attempt to shuck and jive, boy.


----------



## Unkotare

gipper said:


> It makes a great deal of sense.  ...




You are comparing dissimilar things; therefore, it makes no sense.


----------



## RKMBrown

rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get to vote on the taxes I pay in TX.  Federal taxes are not voted on by individual states.  They are mandated by people in DC who are elected by people in NY, California, etc.  Citizens of conservative states are forced into socialism by citizens of marxist states.
> 
> 
> 
> Last I saw, Texas has two Senators and a shitload of Congressmen all elected by voters in Texas. So yes, you geta say in what taxes are assessed. That is not socialism...it is democracy at its best
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah we'll we were supposed to be a republic... not a democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A Republic is an implementation of Democracy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's like saying tyranny is an implementation of liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it isn't
> 
> Try again
Click to expand...

Democracy in the form we are currently employing, due to the destruction of the power the republic previously held, is tyranny of the majority over smaller groups, such as states that prefer liberty over marxism.  A republic is the opposite of democracy.  It is a government formed to eliminate tyranny of the majority...  The republic has clearly been thrown out with the bathwater now, see 14th due process clause, 16th, and 17th amendments.


----------



## Dan Daly

mudwhistle said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I often wonder why Lincoln is so revered.  If you and I were married and you wanted a divorce, would you give me your undying love and loyalty if I used force to prevent you from leaving me and destroyed all your stuff in the process?
> 
> Lincoln proved that we are not a free nation, because free nations don't need to be held together by force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty generic answer.
> 
> When a society is free sometimes people abuse their freedoms.
Click to expand...


If one of us abused our freedoms in that fashion, we'd go to prison. 

Some think that government is allowed to abuse freedoms that we mere peons cannot...I am not of that school -_ "government of the people, by the people, for the people_" should also be held to the same standards as the people.


----------



## Dan Daly

Unkotare said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> It makes a great deal of sense.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are comparing dissimilar things; therefore, it makes no sense.
Click to expand...


More of the "i think they are dissimilar, so I am right and you are wrong" fallacy.  Bluff and bluster are not an acceptable substitute for actual intelligence, son.


----------



## Dan Daly

mudwhistle said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I often wonder why Lincoln is so revered. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because he preserved the Union, punished the traitorous Confederate dogs, and set forces in motion that would inevitably and finally end the scourge of slavery in this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you'd beat your wife half to death and force her to stay married to you to preserve your union?  Nice.  Bet the women just loooove you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If she was keeping slaves the bitch deserved it.
Click to expand...


Tell it to the judge.


----------



## Dan Daly

RKMBrown said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Soldiers are essentially slaves to the government after they sign a contract. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.
Click to expand...


Whew, glad I was a Marine and not a soldier.   

If the soldier was drafted I might agree, or if you used the term "wage slave" which applies to a good portion of the non-military population as well.


----------



## Unkotare

Dan Daly said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The analogies are united by the notion of keeping a union together by force and violence. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your analogy fails because you are trying to compare unlike things. How many times do you need this explained to you, kid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you dispute that in all cases a union is held together by force and violence?  ...
Click to expand...



I _dispute_ that the personal relationship choices of one man and one woman are in any serious way analogous to a nation of over 30 million people wrestling with the principles of federalism and fundamental human rights. Got it now, kid?


----------



## mudwhistle

Dan Daly said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I often wonder why Lincoln is so revered.  If you and I were married and you wanted a divorce, would you give me your undying love and loyalty if I used force to prevent you from leaving me and destroyed all your stuff in the process?
> 
> Lincoln proved that we are not a free nation, because free nations don't need to be held together by force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty generic answer.
> 
> When a society is free sometimes people abuse their freedoms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one of us abused our freedoms in that fashion, we'd go to prison.
> 
> Some think that government is allowed to abuse freedoms that we mere peons cannot...I am not of that school -_ "government of the people, by the people, for the people_" should also be held to the same standards as the people.
Click to expand...


The Bill of Rights was written as a protective measure against abusive government.

The problem with any free society is the constant threat that enemies of freedom pose to it. The South didn't believe in equality, so they tried to abuse their freedom. Corrective measures had to be taken in order to assure that this nation endured. Part of the growing pains of any fledgling society.


----------



## mudwhistle

Dan Daly said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I often wonder why Lincoln is so revered. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because he preserved the Union, punished the traitorous Confederate dogs, and set forces in motion that would inevitably and finally end the scourge of slavery in this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you'd beat your wife half to death and force her to stay married to you to preserve your union?  Nice.  Bet the women just loooove you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If she was keeping slaves the bitch deserved it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell it to the judge.
Click to expand...



????


----------



## Dan Daly

Unkotare said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The analogies are united by the notion of keeping a union together by force and violence. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your analogy fails because you are trying to compare unlike things. How many times do you need this explained to you, kid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you dispute that in all cases a union is held together by force and violence?  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I _dispute_ that the personal relationship choices of one man and one woman are in any serious way analogous to a nation of over 30 million people wrestling with the principles of federalism and fundamental human rights. Got it now, kid?
Click to expand...


another unrelated strawman... a union of people is a union of people...and keeping any union together by force is wrong...period.   Keep trying though, son, we have a pool going concerning how long it will take before your widdle punkin head explodes.


----------



## Dan Daly

mudwhistle said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I often wonder why Lincoln is so revered. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because he preserved the Union, punished the traitorous Confederate dogs, and set forces in motion that would inevitably and finally end the scourge of slavery in this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you'd beat your wife half to death and force her to stay married to you to preserve your union?  Nice.  Bet the women just loooove you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If she was keeping slaves the bitch deserved it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell it to the judge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ????
Click to expand...


I should have known better than to attempt a joke on someone with an avatar of Spock.


----------



## mudwhistle

Dan Daly said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because he preserved the Union, punished the traitorous Confederate dogs, and set forces in motion that would inevitably and finally end the scourge of slavery in this nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you'd beat your wife half to death and force her to stay married to you to preserve your union?  Nice.  Bet the women just loooove you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If she was keeping slaves the bitch deserved it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell it to the judge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ????
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I should have known better than to attempt a joke on someone with an avatar of Spock.
Click to expand...



One of the purposes of any joke is to be funny.


----------



## mudwhistle

Dan Daly said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The analogies are united by the notion of keeping a union together by force and violence. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your analogy fails because you are trying to compare unlike things. How many times do you need this explained to you, kid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you dispute that in all cases a union is held together by force and violence?  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I _dispute_ that the personal relationship choices of one man and one woman are in any serious way analogous to a nation of over 30 million people wrestling with the principles of federalism and fundamental human rights. Got it now, kid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> another unrelated strawman... a union of people is a union of people...and keeping any union together by force is wrong...period.   Keep trying though, son, we have a pool going concerning how long it will take before your widdle punkin head explodes.
Click to expand...


Depends on what is at stake.

If standing by and allowing a terrible injustice to take place or continue to take place, just cuz your principles interfere with your moral judgment, that's wrong as well


----------



## rightwinger

rightwinger said:


> Not too hard
> 
> Lincoln: Preserved the union, made us the UNITED STATES not just a bunch of states that were united
> 
> FDR: Brought us through the depression, showed how a modern democracy should act, carried us through WWII, Made us a Superpower
> 
> Teddy Roosevelt: One of our first modern presidents, showed what presidential power was about, Panama Canal, broke up the trusts, National Parks
> 
> Wilson: Gave us a modern monetary system, Brought us through WWI and helped broker the peace
> 
> Washington: Layed the groundwork for future Presidents and Presidential Powers


 
Next 5

Jefferson: Expanded the US, exploration of the West

Jackson: Established Presidential powers of the executive branch

Ike: Cold War, Space Program, Interstate hughway system

Truman: Marshall Plan, UN, Fired MacArthur

Obama: Prevented a depresssion, saved the auto companies, Obamacare


----------



## WelfareQueen

rightwinger said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Teddy Roosevelt - the most badass of all Presidents.  We could use someone with his stones today.
> 
> 2.  James Monroe - the Monroe doctrine should never have been abandoned
> 
> 3.  Thomas Jefferson - founding father, declaration of independence, Louisiana purchase
> 
> 4.  George Washington - for obvious reasons
> 
> 5.  Abe Lincoln - saved the Union
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The perfect list imho.  Agree completely.
> 
> 
> I would include some folks close to these guys.
> 
> 
> 1.  James K. Polk.  Greatest one term President in U.S. History.  Basically acquired 1/2 the U.S. in 4 years.  No bullshit.  Tough but fair.  Literally worked himself to death.
> 
> 
> 2.  James Madison.  Greatest political genius in U.S. History.
> 
> 
> 3.  Harry Truman.  Made the tough decisions no one would want to make.  Truly accountable.
> 
> 
> 4.  FDR.  Tremendous leader.
> 
> 
> 5.  Andrew Jackson.  Tough SOB who genuinely stood up for the common man.  Hated the big money oligarchs that have always tried to run our Country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Madison almost lost the country with his war with England and attempts to capture Canada. Far from a great President
Click to expand...



Won the second war of Independence against Britain.  Primary Architect of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Co-Author of the Federalist Papers.  Probably the greatest political mind in U.S. History.

Sorry...you don't know your history and sadly.....you're wrong.


----------



## RKMBrown

Dan Daly said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Soldiers are essentially slaves to the government after they sign a contract. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whew, glad I was a Marine and not a soldier.
> 
> If the soldier was drafted I might agree, or if you used the term "wage slave" which applies to a good portion of the non-military population as well.
Click to expand...

Slave 
1:  a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
*2:  one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence*
3*:*  a device (as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another
*4: drudge, toiler*

drudge: to do hard, menial, or monotonous work
toiler: a person who is overworked... a person who toils
toil: a*:*struggle, battle b*:*  laborious effort


----------



## Dan Daly

mudwhistle said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The analogies are united by the notion of keeping a union together by force and violence. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your analogy fails because you are trying to compare unlike things. How many times do you need this explained to you, kid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you dispute that in all cases a union is held together by force and violence?  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I _dispute_ that the personal relationship choices of one man and one woman are in any serious way analogous to a nation of over 30 million people wrestling with the principles of federalism and fundamental human rights. Got it now, kid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> another unrelated strawman... a union of people is a union of people...and keeping any union together by force is wrong...period.   Keep trying though, son, we have a pool going concerning how long it will take before your widdle punkin head explodes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on what is at stake.
> 
> If standing by and allowing a terrible injustice to take place or continue to take place, just cuz your principles interfere with your moral judgment, that's wrong as well
Click to expand...


uh...I believe your principles and morals are one in the same, but I understand the point you are trying to make.  I'm glad you are willing to rebel against your government if they ever attempt to reinstate conscription though.


----------



## rightwinger

WelfareQueen said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Teddy Roosevelt - the most badass of all Presidents.  We could use someone with his stones today.
> 
> 2.  James Monroe - the Monroe doctrine should never have been abandoned
> 
> 3.  Thomas Jefferson - founding father, declaration of independence, Louisiana purchase
> 
> 4.  George Washington - for obvious reasons
> 
> 5.  Abe Lincoln - saved the Union
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The perfect list imho.  Agree completely.
> 
> 
> I would include some folks close to these guys.
> 
> 
> 1.  James K. Polk.  Greatest one term President in U.S. History.  Basically acquired 1/2 the U.S. in 4 years.  No bullshit.  Tough but fair.  Literally worked himself to death.
> 
> 
> 2.  James Madison.  Greatest political genius in U.S. History.
> 
> 
> 3.  Harry Truman.  Made the tough decisions no one would want to make.  Truly accountable.
> 
> 
> 4.  FDR.  Tremendous leader.
> 
> 
> 5.  Andrew Jackson.  Tough SOB who genuinely stood up for the common man.  Hated the big money oligarchs that have always tried to run our Country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Madison almost lost the country with his war with England and attempts to capture Canada. Far from a great President
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Won the second war of Independence against Britain.  Primary Architect of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Co-Author of the Federalist Papers.  Probably the greatest political mind in U.S. History.
> 
> Sorry...you don't know your history and sadly.....you're wrong.
Click to expand...

 
He worked on the Constitution and Federalist Papers decades before he was President. It was not a Presidential  accomplishment

Sorry...you don't know your history and sadly....you're wrong


----------



## Dan Daly

RKMBrown said:


> Slave
> 1:  a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
> *2:  one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence*
> 3*:*  a device (as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another
> *4: drudge, toiler*
> 
> drudge: to do hard, menial, or monotonous work
> toiler: a person who is overworked... a person who toils
> toil: a*:*struggle, battle b*:*  laborious effort



Oh crap, I smell a Drudge debate coming

I don't know where you get this notion that I or others were "completely subservient to a dominating influence" because we were in the military though.  We signed a contract, we did not give up our free choice.  I could choose to disobey, just like I can choose to disobey the law as a civilian...and also must accept responsibility for the consequences of my choices in both situations.


----------



## rightwinger

Madisons foray into the War of 1812 was a blunder

He could have settled it diplomatically, he botched the invasion of Canada, He lost Washington DC and saw it burned...nearly lost the country for no reason

As a President, Madison was a bust


----------



## WelfareQueen

rightwinger said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Teddy Roosevelt - the most badass of all Presidents.  We could use someone with his stones today.
> 
> 2.  James Monroe - the Monroe doctrine should never have been abandoned
> 
> 3.  Thomas Jefferson - founding father, declaration of independence, Louisiana purchase
> 
> 4.  George Washington - for obvious reasons
> 
> 5.  Abe Lincoln - saved the Union
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The perfect list imho.  Agree completely.
> 
> 
> I would include some folks close to these guys.
> 
> 
> 1.  James K. Polk.  Greatest one term President in U.S. History.  Basically acquired 1/2 the U.S. in 4 years.  No bullshit.  Tough but fair.  Literally worked himself to death.
> 
> 
> 2.  James Madison.  Greatest political genius in U.S. History.
> 
> 
> 3.  Harry Truman.  Made the tough decisions no one would want to make.  Truly accountable.
> 
> 
> 4.  FDR.  Tremendous leader.
> 
> 
> 5.  Andrew Jackson.  Tough SOB who genuinely stood up for the common man.  Hated the big money oligarchs that have always tried to run our Country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Madison almost lost the country with his war with England and attempts to capture Canada. Far from a great President
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Won the second war of Independence against Britain.  Primary Architect of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Co-Author of the Federalist Papers.  Probably the greatest political mind in U.S. History.
> 
> Sorry...you don't know your history and sadly.....you're wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He worked on the Constitution and Federalist Papers decades before he was President. It was not a Presidential  accomplishment
> 
> Sorry...you don't know your history and sadly....you're wrong
Click to expand...



Also one of the greatest Secretaries of State in U.S. History.  And yes...their legacy is their entire vitae.  

Like Obama's accomplishment.  Community Organizer.


----------



## WelfareQueen

rightwinger said:


> Madisons foray into the War of 1812 was a blunder
> 
> He could have settled it diplomatically, he botched the invasion of Canada, He lost Washington DC and saw it burned...nearly lost the country for no reason
> 
> As a President, Madison was a bust




He is consistently rated by Historians in the upper tier of U.S. Presidents and has been for decades.  You're entitled to your opinion....but you are still wrong. 

Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## RKMBrown

Dan Daly said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slave
> 1:  a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
> *2:  one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence*
> 3*:*  a device (as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another
> *4: drudge, toiler*
> 
> drudge: to do hard, menial, or monotonous work
> toiler: a person who is overworked... a person who toils
> toil: a*:*struggle, battle b*:*  laborious effort
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh crap, I smell a Drudge debate coming
> 
> I don't know where you get this notion that I or others were "completely subservient to a dominating influence" because we were in the military though.  We signed a contract, we did not give up our free choice.  I could choose to disobey, just like I can choose to disobey the law as a civilian...and also must accept responsibility for the consequences of my choices in both situations.
Click to expand...

And slaves of yore could disobey as well, no?  Slavery does not mean mind control.  Though I'm aware some elements of training of slaves and soldiers does include... elements of mind control.. no?


----------



## rightwinger

WelfareQueen said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Teddy Roosevelt - the most badass of all Presidents.  We could use someone with his stones today.
> 
> 2.  James Monroe - the Monroe doctrine should never have been abandoned
> 
> 3.  Thomas Jefferson - founding father, declaration of independence, Louisiana purchase
> 
> 4.  George Washington - for obvious reasons
> 
> 5.  Abe Lincoln - saved the Union
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The perfect list imho.  Agree completely.
> 
> 
> I would include some folks close to these guys.
> 
> 
> 1.  James K. Polk.  Greatest one term President in U.S. History.  Basically acquired 1/2 the U.S. in 4 years.  No bullshit.  Tough but fair.  Literally worked himself to death.
> 
> 
> 2.  James Madison.  Greatest political genius in U.S. History.
> 
> 
> 3.  Harry Truman.  Made the tough decisions no one would want to make.  Truly accountable.
> 
> 
> 4.  FDR.  Tremendous leader.
> 
> 
> 5.  Andrew Jackson.  Tough SOB who genuinely stood up for the common man.  Hated the big money oligarchs that have always tried to run our Country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Madison almost lost the country with his war with England and attempts to capture Canada. Far from a great President
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Won the second war of Independence against Britain.  Primary Architect of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Co-Author of the Federalist Papers.  Probably the greatest political mind in U.S. History.
> 
> Sorry...you don't know your history and sadly.....you're wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He worked on the Constitution and Federalist Papers decades before he was President. It was not a Presidential  accomplishment
> 
> Sorry...you don't know your history and sadly....you're wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Also one of the greatest Secretaries of State in U.S. History.  And yes...their legacy is their entire vitae.
> 
> Like Obama's accomplishment.  Community Organizer.
Click to expand...

 
Again, working on the Constitution and being Secretary of State are not Presidential accomplishments

Neither are Washington winning the Revolution, Grant winning Vickburg or Ike winning D Day

As president, Madison nearly lost our new found country. Not an accomplished tenure


----------



## Dan Daly

Dan Daly said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slave
> 1:  a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
> *2:  one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence*
> 3*:*  a device (as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another
> *4: drudge, toiler*
> 
> drudge: to do hard, menial, or monotonous work
> toiler: a person who is overworked... a person who toils
> toil: a*:*struggle, battle b*:*  laborious effort
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh crap, I smell a Drudge debate coming
Click to expand...




RKMBrown said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slave
> 1:  a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
> *2:  one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence*
> 3*:*  a device (as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another
> *4: drudge, toiler*
> 
> drudge: to do hard, menial, or monotonous work
> toiler: a person who is overworked... a person who toils
> toil: a*:*struggle, battle b*:*  laborious effort
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh crap, I smell a Drudge debate coming
> 
> I don't know where you get this notion that I or others were "completely subservient to a dominating influence" because we were in the military though.  We signed a contract, we did not give up our free choice.  I could choose to disobey, just like I can choose to disobey the law as a civilian...and also must accept responsibility for the consequences of my choices in both situations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And slaves of yore could disobey as well, no?  Slavery does not mean mind control.  Though I'm aware some elements of training of slaves and soldiers does include... elements of mind control.. no?
Click to expand...


Difference is, in the military we rate due process, just like any other citizen, if we disobey (combat situations excluded of course), while a slave has no right to due process.

Crap, I hate you now for making me blow away my own arguments about the draft being slavery.  I'LL GET YOU RED BARON!!!!


----------



## longknife

Dan Daly said:


> I am really torn on Ike.  It's like he was one of our greatest heroes and also one of our greatest disappointments.



Ike was a great political general and NOT a tactician. He was smart enough to select aides who had the sense to make good tactical plans. However, because he was a politician, he failed to take advantage of the Allies successes to take over all of Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Latvia, and so on. This resulted in the Cold War that Patton and others warned of.

His major accomplishment was pushing for the Interstate system based upon Hitler's autobahn system.

Like most wars, WWII was ended purely on a political note that Ike not only accepted but furthered.


----------



## Dan Daly

longknife said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am really torn on Ike.  It's like he was one of our greatest heroes and also one of our greatest disappointments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ike was a great political general and NOT a tactician. He was smart enough to select aides who had the sense to make good tactical plans. However, because he was a politician, he failed to take advantage of the Allies successes to take over all of Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Latvia, and so on. This resulted in the Cold War that Patton and others warned of.
> 
> His major accomplishment was pushing for the Interstate system based upon Hitler's autobahn system.
> 
> Like most wars, WWII was ended purely on a political note that Ike not only accepted but furthered.
Click to expand...


My problem with Ike was that he was in a position to dismantle much of the BS that FDR managed during his reign, but not only didn't, but expanded upon it and made it seem as American as apple pie....much like Obama has expanded and normalized the legacy of his whiter brother Bush.


----------



## RKMBrown

Dan Daly said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slave
> 1:  a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
> *2:  one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence*
> 3*:*  a device (as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another
> *4: drudge, toiler*
> 
> drudge: to do hard, menial, or monotonous work
> toiler: a person who is overworked... a person who toils
> toil: a*:*struggle, battle b*:*  laborious effort
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh crap, I smell a Drudge debate coming
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slave
> 1:  a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
> *2:  one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence*
> 3*:*  a device (as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another
> *4: drudge, toiler*
> 
> drudge: to do hard, menial, or monotonous work
> toiler: a person who is overworked... a person who toils
> toil: a*:*struggle, battle b*:*  laborious effort
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh crap, I smell a Drudge debate coming
> 
> I don't know where you get this notion that I or others were "completely subservient to a dominating influence" because we were in the military though.  We signed a contract, we did not give up our free choice.  I could choose to disobey, just like I can choose to disobey the law as a civilian...and also must accept responsibility for the consequences of my choices in both situations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And slaves of yore could disobey as well, no?  Slavery does not mean mind control.  Though I'm aware some elements of training of slaves and soldiers does include... elements of mind control.. no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Difference is, in the military we rate due process, just like any other citizen, if we disobey (combat situations excluded of course), while a slave has no right to due process.
> 
> Crap, I hate you now for making me blow away my own arguments about the draft being slavery.  I'LL GET YOU RED BARON!!!!
Click to expand...

You are conflating my use of the term, slave, with your use of the antiquated term slave which is limited by the definition of a man held as property by contract by another man.   Merely making the contract a government owned contract does not excuse the same act, no?

As for your' blowing away my argument... heh  You don't rate civil due process in the military you rate military justice, which is not the same.  Further, as a soldier you give up many rights afforded otherwise free men.  Specifically, as a soldier amendments 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 do not apply to you.


----------



## rightwinger

Dan Daly said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am really torn on Ike.  It's like he was one of our greatest heroes and also one of our greatest disappointments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ike was a great political general and NOT a tactician. He was smart enough to select aides who had the sense to make good tactical plans. However, because he was a politician, he failed to take advantage of the Allies successes to take over all of Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Latvia, and so on. This resulted in the Cold War that Patton and others warned of.
> 
> His major accomplishment was pushing for the Interstate system based upon Hitler's autobahn system.
> 
> Like most wars, WWII was ended purely on a political note that Ike not only accepted but furthered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My problem with Ike was that he was in a position to dismantle much of the BS that FDR managed during his reign, but not only didn't, but expanded upon it and made it seem as American as apple pie....much like Obama has expanded and normalized the legacy of his whiter brother Bush.
Click to expand...

 
Unlike todays Republicans, Ike cared about the people

A reason he is a top president


----------



## rightwinger

RKMBrown said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slave
> 1:  a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
> *2:  one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence*
> 3*:*  a device (as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another
> *4: drudge, toiler*
> 
> drudge: to do hard, menial, or monotonous work
> toiler: a person who is overworked... a person who toils
> toil: a*:*struggle, battle b*:*  laborious effort
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh crap, I smell a Drudge debate coming
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slave
> 1:  a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
> *2:  one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence*
> 3*:*  a device (as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another
> *4: drudge, toiler*
> 
> drudge: to do hard, menial, or monotonous work
> toiler: a person who is overworked... a person who toils
> toil: a*:*struggle, battle b*:*  laborious effort
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh crap, I smell a Drudge debate coming
> 
> I don't know where you get this notion that I or others were "completely subservient to a dominating influence" because we were in the military though.  We signed a contract, we did not give up our free choice.  I could choose to disobey, just like I can choose to disobey the law as a civilian...and also must accept responsibility for the consequences of my choices in both situations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And slaves of yore could disobey as well, no?  Slavery does not mean mind control.  Though I'm aware some elements of training of slaves and soldiers does include... elements of mind control.. no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Difference is, in the military we rate due process, just like any other citizen, if we disobey (combat situations excluded of course), while a slave has no right to due process.
> 
> Crap, I hate you now for making me blow away my own arguments about the draft being slavery.  I'LL GET YOU RED BARON!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are conflating my use of the term, slave, with your use of the antiquated term slave which is limited by the definition of a man held as property by contract by another man.   Merely making the contract a government owned contract does not excuse the same act, no?
> 
> As for your' blowing away my argument... heh  You don't rate civil due process in the military you rate military justice, which is not the same.  Further, as a soldier you give up many rights afforded otherwise free men.  Specifically, as a soldier amendments 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 do not apply to you.
Click to expand...

 
A soldier willingly signs a contract.
He has the right to vote
He has access to the justice system
He is paid for his service

Hardly a slave by any definition


----------



## RKMBrown

rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slave
> 1:  a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
> *2:  one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence*
> 3*:*  a device (as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another
> *4: drudge, toiler*
> 
> drudge: to do hard, menial, or monotonous work
> toiler: a person who is overworked... a person who toils
> toil: a*:*struggle, battle b*:*  laborious effort
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh crap, I smell a Drudge debate coming
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slave
> 1:  a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
> *2:  one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence*
> 3*:*  a device (as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another
> *4: drudge, toiler*
> 
> drudge: to do hard, menial, or monotonous work
> toiler: a person who is overworked... a person who toils
> toil: a*:*struggle, battle b*:*  laborious effort
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh crap, I smell a Drudge debate coming
> 
> I don't know where you get this notion that I or others were "completely subservient to a dominating influence" because we were in the military though.  We signed a contract, we did not give up our free choice.  I could choose to disobey, just like I can choose to disobey the law as a civilian...and also must accept responsibility for the consequences of my choices in both situations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And slaves of yore could disobey as well, no?  Slavery does not mean mind control.  Though I'm aware some elements of training of slaves and soldiers does include... elements of mind control.. no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Difference is, in the military we rate due process, just like any other citizen, if we disobey (combat situations excluded of course), while a slave has no right to due process.
> 
> Crap, I hate you now for making me blow away my own arguments about the draft being slavery.  I'LL GET YOU RED BARON!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are conflating my use of the term, slave, with your use of the antiquated term slave which is limited by the definition of a man held as property by contract by another man.   Merely making the contract a government owned contract does not excuse the same act, no?
> 
> As for your' blowing away my argument... heh  You don't rate civil due process in the military you rate military justice, which is not the same.  Further, as a soldier you give up many rights afforded otherwise free men.  Specifically, as a soldier amendments 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 do not apply to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A soldier willingly signs a contract.
> He has the right to vote
> He has access to the justice system
> He is paid for his service
> 
> Hardly a slave by any definition
Click to expand...

And many slaves willingly entered such contracts.  See indentured servitude. The assumption that all slaves were forced into the agreement is not correct.

The same can be said for government enforced slavery of labor through payroll taxes.  You may willingly accept your zero percent personal income tax rate, but that does not mean I willingly accept my 35% personal income tax rate.


----------



## mudwhistle

Dan Daly said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your analogy fails because you are trying to compare unlike things. How many times do you need this explained to you, kid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you dispute that in all cases a union is held together by force and violence?  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I _dispute_ that the personal relationship choices of one man and one woman are in any serious way analogous to a nation of over 30 million people wrestling with the principles of federalism and fundamental human rights. Got it now, kid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> another unrelated strawman... a union of people is a union of people...and keeping any union together by force is wrong...period.   Keep trying though, son, we have a pool going concerning how long it will take before your widdle punkin head explodes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on what is at stake.
> 
> If standing by and allowing a terrible injustice to take place or continue to take place, just cuz your principles interfere with your moral judgment, that's wrong as well
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> uh...I believe your principles and morals are one in the same, but I understand the point you are trying to make.  I'm glad you are willing to rebel against your government if they ever attempt to reinstate conscription though.
Click to expand...


Principles and morals aren't always the same.

And it's one thing thing to rebel against a government that wants to take your freedom away, but quite another when your government practices selective freedoms for favored groups all to buy votes.


----------



## RKMBrown

Indentured Servants In The U.S. History Detectives PBS


----------



## rightwinger

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slave
> 1:  a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
> *2:  one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence*
> 3*:*  a device (as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another
> *4: drudge, toiler*
> 
> drudge: to do hard, menial, or monotonous work
> toiler: a person who is overworked... a person who toils
> toil: a*:*struggle, battle b*:*  laborious effort
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh crap, I smell a Drudge debate coming
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh crap, I smell a Drudge debate coming
> 
> I don't know where you get this notion that I or others were "completely subservient to a dominating influence" because we were in the military though.  We signed a contract, we did not give up our free choice.  I could choose to disobey, just like I can choose to disobey the law as a civilian...and also must accept responsibility for the consequences of my choices in both situations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And slaves of yore could disobey as well, no?  Slavery does not mean mind control.  Though I'm aware some elements of training of slaves and soldiers does include... elements of mind control.. no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Difference is, in the military we rate due process, just like any other citizen, if we disobey (combat situations excluded of course), while a slave has no right to due process.
> 
> Crap, I hate you now for making me blow away my own arguments about the draft being slavery.  I'LL GET YOU RED BARON!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are conflating my use of the term, slave, with your use of the antiquated term slave which is limited by the definition of a man held as property by contract by another man.   Merely making the contract a government owned contract does not excuse the same act, no?
> 
> As for your' blowing away my argument... heh  You don't rate civil due process in the military you rate military justice, which is not the same.  Further, as a soldier you give up many rights afforded otherwise free men.  Specifically, as a soldier amendments 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 do not apply to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A soldier willingly signs a contract.
> He has the right to vote
> He has access to the justice system
> He is paid for his service
> 
> Hardly a slave by any definition
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And many slaves willingly entered such contracts.  See indentured servitude. The assumption that all slaves were forced into the agreement is not correct.
> 
> The same can be said for government enforced slavery of labor through payroll taxes.  You may willingly accept your zero percent personal income tax rate, but that does not mean I willingly accept my 35% personal income tax rate.
Click to expand...

 
Endentured servants were not slaves

The 4 million slaves in 1861 never signed a contract. In fact, they were prohibited from being taught to read

Your insistence on comparing taxation to slavery is an embarassment


----------



## Dan Daly

RKMBrown said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slave
> 1:  a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
> *2:  one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence*
> 3*:*  a device (as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another
> *4: drudge, toiler*
> 
> drudge: to do hard, menial, or monotonous work
> toiler: a person who is overworked... a person who toils
> toil: a*:*struggle, battle b*:*  laborious effort
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh crap, I smell a Drudge debate coming
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slave
> 1:  a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
> *2:  one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence*
> 3*:*  a device (as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another
> *4: drudge, toiler*
> 
> drudge: to do hard, menial, or monotonous work
> toiler: a person who is overworked... a person who toils
> toil: a*:*struggle, battle b*:*  laborious effort
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh crap, I smell a Drudge debate coming
> 
> I don't know where you get this notion that I or others were "completely subservient to a dominating influence" because we were in the military though.  We signed a contract, we did not give up our free choice.  I could choose to disobey, just like I can choose to disobey the law as a civilian...and also must accept responsibility for the consequences of my choices in both situations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And slaves of yore could disobey as well, no?  Slavery does not mean mind control.  Though I'm aware some elements of training of slaves and soldiers does include... elements of mind control.. no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Difference is, in the military we rate due process, just like any other citizen, if we disobey (combat situations excluded of course), while a slave has no right to due process.
> 
> Crap, I hate you now for making me blow away my own arguments about the draft being slavery.  I'LL GET YOU RED BARON!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are conflating my use of the term, slave, with your use of the antiquated term slave which is limited by the definition of a man held as property by contract by another man.   Merely making the contract a government owned contract does not excuse the same act, no?
> 
> As for your' blowing away my argument... heh  You don't rate civil due process in the military you rate military justice, which is not the same.  Further, as a soldier you give up many rights afforded otherwise free men.  Specifically, as a soldier amendments 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 do not apply to you.
Click to expand...


Well first, lets get one thing straight, I am/was a Marine not a soldier.  At least you didn't call me a silly sailor...in which case I'd have to skin you alive and roast you on a spit.  

At the time, I agree that I felt many of my rights under those amendments were restricted, but today I don't feel that to the same degree.  I could speak as freely then as we can today (indicating how much our 1st amendment rights have fallen), freely exercise my religion (indeed suffering zealots too).  My right to bear arms was only infringed on base...though today those same restrictions apply to most workplaces...indicating how far our second amendment rights have fallen.  My 4th amendment rights were only restricted when on military property...and again probably on par with the restrictions we suffer today everywhere.   There was little or no loss of 5th and 6th amendment rights under the UCMJ, though the use of non-judicial punishment is something we don't often see in the civilian world. The 7th obviously doesn't apply under the UCMJ, but I was still able to exercise it in civilian courts had I felt the need.

The take away here is how degraded our rights as civilians have become since I served in the military....and it's freakin depressing and makes me want to shoot something.


----------



## RKMBrown

rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh crap, I smell a Drudge debate coming
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> And slaves of yore could disobey as well, no?  Slavery does not mean mind control.  Though I'm aware some elements of training of slaves and soldiers does include... elements of mind control.. no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Difference is, in the military we rate due process, just like any other citizen, if we disobey (combat situations excluded of course), while a slave has no right to due process.
> 
> Crap, I hate you now for making me blow away my own arguments about the draft being slavery.  I'LL GET YOU RED BARON!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are conflating my use of the term, slave, with your use of the antiquated term slave which is limited by the definition of a man held as property by contract by another man.   Merely making the contract a government owned contract does not excuse the same act, no?
> 
> As for your' blowing away my argument... heh  You don't rate civil due process in the military you rate military justice, which is not the same.  Further, as a soldier you give up many rights afforded otherwise free men.  Specifically, as a soldier amendments 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 do not apply to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A soldier willingly signs a contract.
> He has the right to vote
> He has access to the justice system
> He is paid for his service
> 
> Hardly a slave by any definition
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And many slaves willingly entered such contracts.  See indentured servitude. The assumption that all slaves were forced into the agreement is not correct.
> 
> The same can be said for government enforced slavery of labor through payroll taxes.  You may willingly accept your zero percent personal income tax rate, but that does not mean I willingly accept my 35% personal income tax rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Endentured servants were not slaves
> 
> The 4 million slaves in 1861 never signed a contract. In fact, they were prohibited from being taught to read
> 
> Your insistence on comparing taxation to slavery is an embarassment
Click to expand...

Taxation is the modern day politically correct equivalent of slavery.


----------



## longknife

Once again, so much BS on here that the OP is long gone.


----------



## Dan Daly

rightwinger said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am really torn on Ike.  It's like he was one of our greatest heroes and also one of our greatest disappointments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ike was a great political general and NOT a tactician. He was smart enough to select aides who had the sense to make good tactical plans. However, because he was a politician, he failed to take advantage of the Allies successes to take over all of Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Latvia, and so on. This resulted in the Cold War that Patton and others warned of.
> 
> His major accomplishment was pushing for the Interstate system based upon Hitler's autobahn system.
> 
> Like most wars, WWII was ended purely on a political note that Ike not only accepted but furthered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My problem with Ike was that he was in a position to dismantle much of the BS that FDR managed during his reign, but not only didn't, but expanded upon it and made it seem as American as apple pie....much like Obama has expanded and normalized the legacy of his whiter brother Bush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike todays Republicans, Ike cared about the people
> 
> A reason he is a top president
Click to expand...


Ike was President back when the two parties had both liberal and conservative wings...something that began to change about the time Goldwater was pretending not to want to run in 64.


----------



## Pogo

Dan Daly said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am really torn on Ike.  It's like he was one of our greatest heroes and also one of our greatest disappointments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ike was a great political general and NOT a tactician. He was smart enough to select aides who had the sense to make good tactical plans. However, because he was a politician, he failed to take advantage of the Allies successes to take over all of Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Latvia, and so on. This resulted in the Cold War that Patton and others warned of.
> 
> His major accomplishment was pushing for the Interstate system based upon Hitler's autobahn system.
> 
> Like most wars, WWII was ended purely on a political note that Ike not only accepted but furthered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My problem with Ike was that he was in a position to dismantle much of the BS that FDR managed during his reign, but not only didn't, but expanded upon it and made it seem as American as apple pie....much like Obama has expanded and normalized the legacy of his whiter brother Bush.
Click to expand...




You're flirting with tenuous ground here...



			
				Fingerboy;9224206 said:
			
		

> Eisenhower was a socialist dupe who positively harmed this country and decreased the freedoms we formerly enjoyed.  Only a statist bootlicker would admire him.


----------



## rightwinger

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Difference is, in the military we rate due process, just like any other citizen, if we disobey (combat situations excluded of course), while a slave has no right to due process.
> 
> Crap, I hate you now for making me blow away my own arguments about the draft being slavery.  I'LL GET YOU RED BARON!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are conflating my use of the term, slave, with your use of the antiquated term slave which is limited by the definition of a man held as property by contract by another man.   Merely making the contract a government owned contract does not excuse the same act, no?
> 
> As for your' blowing away my argument... heh  You don't rate civil due process in the military you rate military justice, which is not the same.  Further, as a soldier you give up many rights afforded otherwise free men.  Specifically, as a soldier amendments 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 do not apply to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A soldier willingly signs a contract.
> He has the right to vote
> He has access to the justice system
> He is paid for his service
> 
> Hardly a slave by any definition
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And many slaves willingly entered such contracts.  See indentured servitude. The assumption that all slaves were forced into the agreement is not correct.
> 
> The same can be said for government enforced slavery of labor through payroll taxes.  You may willingly accept your zero percent personal income tax rate, but that does not mean I willingly accept my 35% personal income tax rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Endentured servants were not slaves
> 
> The 4 million slaves in 1861 never signed a contract. In fact, they were prohibited from being taught to read
> 
> Your insistence on comparing taxation to slavery is an embarassment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Taxation is the modern day politically correct equivalent of slavery.
Click to expand...

So says the moron


----------



## RKMBrown

rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are conflating my use of the term, slave, with your use of the antiquated term slave which is limited by the definition of a man held as property by contract by another man.   Merely making the contract a government owned contract does not excuse the same act, no?
> 
> As for your' blowing away my argument... heh  You don't rate civil due process in the military you rate military justice, which is not the same.  Further, as a soldier you give up many rights afforded otherwise free men.  Specifically, as a soldier amendments 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 do not apply to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A soldier willingly signs a contract.
> He has the right to vote
> He has access to the justice system
> He is paid for his service
> 
> Hardly a slave by any definition
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And many slaves willingly entered such contracts.  See indentured servitude. The assumption that all slaves were forced into the agreement is not correct.
> 
> The same can be said for government enforced slavery of labor through payroll taxes.  You may willingly accept your zero percent personal income tax rate, but that does not mean I willingly accept my 35% personal income tax rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Endentured servants were not slaves
> 
> The 4 million slaves in 1861 never signed a contract. In fact, they were prohibited from being taught to read
> 
> Your insistence on comparing taxation to slavery is an embarassment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Taxation is the modern day politically correct equivalent of slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So says the moron
Click to expand...

So says the moron with the 160+ IQ, who's intellectual disability is rejecting marxisim as the next great step for mankind.


----------



## gipper

rightwinger said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see the tyranny in FDR's imprisonment of the Japanese Americans, but fail to see that Lincoln's actions were much worse.  One could conclude you think the rights of Japanese Americans are much more important than Southerns. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes absolutely no sense. Japanese Americans were not trying to destroy the country. They had not taken up arms against the country, and certainly weren't enslaving other people within the country. You are posting out of ill-considered emotion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It makes a great deal of sense.  FDR's actions were unconstitutional and tyrannical, just as was Lincoln's.  FDR's tyranny may have been less murderous than Lincoln's, but it was still tyranny.  Had the Japanese Americans resisted, they would most certainly have been murdered just as the Southerns were.
> 
> FDR believed the Japanese Americans were traitors so he imprisoned them.  Lincoln saw Southerns the same way.  Had the Japanese Americans been as numerous as the Southerns, they would have fought to prevent their imprisonment, as did the Southerns.
> 
> Lincoln invaded the South to keep it in the Union.  That is clear to anyone who can think.  So, he destroyed what he wanted to keep...and he did so purely for statist reasons...nothing to do with slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FDR was a man of his political times. Very few Americans were willing to stand up for the rights of Japanese Americans in 1942. Congress wasn't, the Supreme Court wasn't and FDR wasn't
> 
> In retrospect, it was wrong. In 1942 anti-Japanese hystera it made sense
Click to expand...


But doofus, you think FDR was a great leader.  A great leader LEADS.  He does not follow.

FDR was a fool, warmonger, liar, elitist, Stalinist stooge, disgusting statist, economic dunce, and dictatorial JACKASS.

That about sums up your beloved leader.


----------



## rightwinger

gipper said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see the tyranny in FDR's imprisonment of the Japanese Americans, but fail to see that Lincoln's actions were much worse.  One could conclude you think the rights of Japanese Americans are much more important than Southerns. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes absolutely no sense. Japanese Americans were not trying to destroy the country. They had not taken up arms against the country, and certainly weren't enslaving other people within the country. You are posting out of ill-considered emotion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It makes a great deal of sense.  FDR's actions were unconstitutional and tyrannical, just as was Lincoln's.  FDR's tyranny may have been less murderous than Lincoln's, but it was still tyranny.  Had the Japanese Americans resisted, they would most certainly have been murdered just as the Southerns were.
> 
> FDR believed the Japanese Americans were traitors so he imprisoned them.  Lincoln saw Southerns the same way.  Had the Japanese Americans been as numerous as the Southerns, they would have fought to prevent their imprisonment, as did the Southerns.
> 
> Lincoln invaded the South to keep it in the Union.  That is clear to anyone who can think.  So, he destroyed what he wanted to keep...and he did so purely for statist reasons...nothing to do with slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FDR was a man of his political times. Very few Americans were willing to stand up for the rights of Japanese Americans in 1942. Congress wasn't, the Supreme Court wasn't and FDR wasn't
> 
> In retrospect, it was wrong. In 1942 anti-Japanese hystera it made sense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But doofus, you think FDR was a great leader.  A great leader LEADS.  He does not follow.
> 
> FDR was a fool, warmonger, liar, elitist, Stalinist stooge, disgusting statist, economic dunce, and dictatorial JACKASS.
> 
> That about sums up your beloved leader.
Click to expand...

All while being the greatest modern president

FDR made us an economic and military superpower


----------



## gipper

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Difference is, in the military we rate due process, just like any other citizen, if we disobey (combat situations excluded of course), while a slave has no right to due process.
> 
> Crap, I hate you now for making me blow away my own arguments about the draft being slavery.  I'LL GET YOU RED BARON!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are conflating my use of the term, slave, with your use of the antiquated term slave which is limited by the definition of a man held as property by contract by another man.   Merely making the contract a government owned contract does not excuse the same act, no?
> 
> As for your' blowing away my argument... heh  You don't rate civil due process in the military you rate military justice, which is not the same.  Further, as a soldier you give up many rights afforded otherwise free men.  Specifically, as a soldier amendments 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 do not apply to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A soldier willingly signs a contract.
> He has the right to vote
> He has access to the justice system
> He is paid for his service
> 
> Hardly a slave by any definition
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And many slaves willingly entered such contracts.  See indentured servitude. The assumption that all slaves were forced into the agreement is not correct.
> 
> The same can be said for government enforced slavery of labor through payroll taxes.  You may willingly accept your zero percent personal income tax rate, but that does not mean I willingly accept my 35% personal income tax rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Endentured servants were not slaves
> 
> The 4 million slaves in 1861 never signed a contract. In fact, they were prohibited from being taught to read
> 
> Your insistence on comparing taxation to slavery is an embarassment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Taxation is the modern day politically correct equivalent of slavery.
Click to expand...


That and inflation, which is purposely and insidiously imposed on us by our government and the Fed.


----------



## norwegen

rightwinger said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see the tyranny in FDR's imprisonment of the Japanese Americans, but fail to see that Lincoln's actions were much worse.  One could conclude you think the rights of Japanese Americans are much more important than Southerns. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes absolutely no sense. Japanese Americans were not trying to destroy the country. They had not taken up arms against the country, and certainly weren't enslaving other people within the country. You are posting out of ill-considered emotion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It makes a great deal of sense.  FDR's actions were unconstitutional and tyrannical, just as was Lincoln's.  FDR's tyranny may have been less murderous than Lincoln's, but it was still tyranny.  Had the Japanese Americans resisted, they would most certainly have been murdered just as the Southerns were.
> 
> FDR believed the Japanese Americans were traitors so he imprisoned them.  Lincoln saw Southerns the same way.  Had the Japanese Americans been as numerous as the Southerns, they would have fought to prevent their imprisonment, as did the Southerns.
> 
> Lincoln invaded the South to keep it in the Union.  That is clear to anyone who can think.  So, he destroyed what he wanted to keep...and he did so purely for statist reasons...nothing to do with slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FDR was a man of his political times. Very few Americans were willing to stand up for the rights of Japanese Americans in 1942. Congress wasn't, the Supreme Court wasn't and FDR wasn't
> 
> In retrospect, it was wrong. In 1942 anti-Japanese hystera it made sense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But doofus, you think FDR was a great leader.  A great leader LEADS.  He does not follow.
> 
> FDR was a fool, warmonger, liar, elitist, Stalinist stooge, disgusting statist, economic dunce, and dictatorial JACKASS.
> 
> That about sums up your beloved leader.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All while being the greatest modern president
> 
> FDR made us an economic and military superpower
Click to expand...

Not so.  The United States was a world power long before FDR, and would have become a superpower regardless.


----------



## rightwinger

norwegen said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That makes absolutely no sense. Japanese Americans were not trying to destroy the country. They had not taken up arms against the country, and certainly weren't enslaving other people within the country. You are posting out of ill-considered emotion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It makes a great deal of sense.  FDR's actions were unconstitutional and tyrannical, just as was Lincoln's.  FDR's tyranny may have been less murderous than Lincoln's, but it was still tyranny.  Had the Japanese Americans resisted, they would most certainly have been murdered just as the Southerns were.
> 
> FDR believed the Japanese Americans were traitors so he imprisoned them.  Lincoln saw Southerns the same way.  Had the Japanese Americans been as numerous as the Southerns, they would have fought to prevent their imprisonment, as did the Southerns.
> 
> Lincoln invaded the South to keep it in the Union.  That is clear to anyone who can think.  So, he destroyed what he wanted to keep...and he did so purely for statist reasons...nothing to do with slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FDR was a man of his political times. Very few Americans were willing to stand up for the rights of Japanese Americans in 1942. Congress wasn't, the Supreme Court wasn't and FDR wasn't
> 
> In retrospect, it was wrong. In 1942 anti-Japanese hystera it made sense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But doofus, you think FDR was a great leader.  A great leader LEADS.  He does not follow.
> 
> FDR was a fool, warmonger, liar, elitist, Stalinist stooge, disgusting statist, economic dunce, and dictatorial JACKASS.
> 
> That about sums up your beloved leader.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All while being the greatest modern president
> 
> FDR made us an economic and military superpower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not so.  The United States was a world power long before FDR, and would have become a superpower regardless.
Click to expand...

Not a super power
We had maybe the fifth largest military before FDR and an economy in depression


----------



## gipper

Sometimes I wish I could be a delusional liberal Democrat like you.

Everything is candy canes and lollipops...its all peaches and cream....everything is WONDERFUL under the great leadership of Obama....it is so much easier...just believe whatever the government and it's media tell me....

.....but then....

I THINK....

unlike you.


----------



## rightwinger

gipper said:


> Sometimes I wish I could be a delusional liberal Democrat like you.
> 
> Everything is candy canes and lollipops...its all peaches and cream....everything is WONDERFUL under the great leadership of Obama....it is so much easier...just believe whatever the government and it's media tell me....
> 
> .....but then....
> 
> I THINK....
> 
> unlike you.


Care for a cookie?


----------



## Unkotare

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last I saw, Texas has two Senators and a shitload of Congressmen all elected by voters in Texas. So yes, you geta say in what taxes are assessed. That is not socialism...it is democracy at its best
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah we'll we were supposed to be a republic... not a democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A Republic is an implementation of Democracy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's like saying tyranny is an implementation of liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it isn't
> 
> Try again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democracy in the form we are currently employing, due to the destruction of the power the republic previously held, is tyranny of the majority over smaller groups, such as states that prefer liberty over marxism.  A republic is the opposite of democracy. ....
Click to expand...



 You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## Unkotare

Dan Daly said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> It makes a great deal of sense.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are comparing dissimilar things; therefore, it makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More of the "i think they are dissimilar, so I am right and you are wrong" ...
Click to expand...



I have told you how they are dissimilar. Pay attention, kid.


----------



## Unkotare

Dan Daly said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The analogies are united by the notion of keeping a union together by force and violence. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your analogy fails because you are trying to compare unlike things. How many times do you need this explained to you, kid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you dispute that in all cases a union is held together by force and violence?  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I _dispute_ that the personal relationship choices of one man and one woman are in any serious way analogous to a nation of over 30 million people wrestling with the principles of federalism and fundamental human rights. Got it now, kid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> another unrelated strawman... a union of people is a union of people......
Click to expand...



You clearly don't know what "strawman" [sic] means. I have explained to you several times now how and why your analogy fails to hold up.


----------



## Thunderbird

rightwinger said:


> Wilson: Gave us a modern monetary system, Brought us through WWI and helped broker the peace


Only a real dunce could admire Wilson. 

*The Federal Reserve Bank Caused The Great Depression*

*Wilson's War: How Woodrow Wilson's Great Blunder Led to Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and World War II*


----------



## Thunderbird

More on Lincoln:

*Lincoln’s Greatest Failure*
 (Or, How a Real Statesman Would Have Ended Slavery)


----------



## RKMBrown

Unkotare said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah we'll we were supposed to be a republic... not a democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> A Republic is an implementation of Democracy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's like saying tyranny is an implementation of liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it isn't
> 
> Try again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democracy in the form we are currently employing, due to the destruction of the power the republic previously held, is tyranny of the majority over smaller groups, such as states that prefer liberty over marxism.  A republic is the opposite of democracy. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Just keep telling yourself that.


----------



## rightwinger

Thunderbird said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wilson: Gave us a modern monetary system, Brought us through WWI and helped broker the peace
> 
> 
> 
> Only a real dunce could admire Wilson.
> 
> *The Federal Reserve Bank Caused The Great Depression*
> 
> *Wilson's War: How Woodrow Wilson's Great Blunder Led to Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and World War II*
Click to expand...

Only an idiot can't understand the wisdom of what the Federal Reserve did to making us a great economic power


----------



## rightwinger

Thunderbird said:


> More on Lincoln:
> 
> *Lincoln’s Greatest Failure*
> (Or, How a Real Statesman Would Have Ended Slavery)


What a crock of shit

No one in history before the Confeds ever created a nation so they could maintain slavery


----------



## Unkotare

RKMBrown said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> A republic is the opposite of democracy. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just keep telling yourself that.
Click to expand...



It's obvious.


----------



## Thunderbird

Pogo said:


> Hard to see how, since the CSA was formed out of seceded states while Buchanan was still President...


You don't seem to realize the states started to leave after Lincoln's election.

War could have been avoided even after the election.  Compromises were proposed.  War could have been avoided even after the attack on Fort Sumter.  No one died at Fort Sumter.  Lincoln did not have to invade the South.


----------



## Thunderbird

rightwinger said:


> Brought us through WWI and helped broker the peace


And you even believe Wilson's performance at the Paris Peace Conference is praiseworthy! lol


----------



## Unkotare

Thunderbird said:


> Lincoln did not have to invade the South.




The Confederate traitors started the war. Everything that followed is on their unworthy heads.


----------



## rightwinger

Thunderbird said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to see how, since the CSA was formed out of seceded states while Buchanan was still President...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't seem to realize the states started to leave after Lincoln's election.
> 
> War could have been avoided even after the election.  Compromises were proposed.  War could have been avoided even after the attack on Fort Sumter.  No one died at Fort Sumter.  Lincoln did not have to invade the South.
Click to expand...

No question the south could have compromised

The writing was on the wall that the days of slavery were numbered. They should have begun the process of allowing slaves more autonomy, basic human rights, a path to freedom

Rather than do that, the South chose to set up a nation dedicated to ensuring the institution of slavery would endure

Despicable....purely despicable


----------



## rightwinger

Thunderbird said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brought us through WWI and helped broker the peace
> 
> 
> 
> And you even believe Wilson's performance at the Paris Peace Conference is praiseworthy! lol
Click to expand...

Absolutely

If only Conservatives in the US didn't fuck things up


----------



## RKMBrown

Unkotare said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln did not have to invade the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederate traitors started the war. Everything that followed is on their unworthy heads.
Click to expand...

Fuck you ya liar.


----------



## Unkotare

RKMBrown said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln did not have to invade the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederate traitors started the war. Everything that followed is on their unworthy heads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you ya liar.
Click to expand...



If the actual FACTS of history make you uncomfortable, that's just too fucking bad.


----------



## RKMBrown

Unkotare said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln did not have to invade the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederate traitors started the war. Everything that followed is on their unworthy heads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you ya liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If the actual FACTS of history make you uncomfortable, that's just too fucking bad.
Click to expand...

Fuck you ya liar.


----------



## Unkotare

RKMBrown said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln did not have to invade the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederate traitors started the war. Everything that followed is on their unworthy heads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you ya liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If the actual FACTS of history make you uncomfortable, that's just too fucking bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you ya liar.
Click to expand...



Spam won't change the actual FACTS of history any more than painting the Confederate flag on the roof of your car will.


----------



## RKMBrown

Unkotare said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln did not have to invade the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederate traitors started the war. Everything that followed is on their unworthy heads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you ya liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If the actual FACTS of history make you uncomfortable, that's just too fucking bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you ya liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Spam won't change the actual FACTS of history any more than painting the Confederate flag on the roof of your car will.
Click to expand...

The NORTH invaded the south DUMB ASS.


----------



## Unkotare

RKMBrown said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederate traitors started the war. Everything that followed is on their unworthy heads.
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you ya liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If the actual FACTS of history make you uncomfortable, that's just too fucking bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you ya liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Spam won't change the actual FACTS of history any more than painting the Confederate flag on the roof of your car will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The NORTH invaded the south DUMB ASS.
Click to expand...



The traitors brought their inevitable doom down upon themselves by committing an act of war. Well, they got war. There was none until they opened fire. Moving troops within one nation is not an "invasion." The traitorous dogs were hunted down and punished less than they deserved.


----------



## Thunderbird

rightwinger said:


> If only Conservatives in the US didn't fuck things up


Your ignorance is on display again.  Many Progressives and Democrats opposed the Treaty of Versailles.  The treaty was just a cynical land grab whatever Wilson's inflated rhetoric.

And please tell me what cause justified the death of all those American soldiers during WW I.


----------



## Thunderbird

rightwinger said:


> The writing was on the wall that the days of slavery were numbered.


True.



> No question the south could have compromised





> They should have begun the process of allowing slaves more autonomy, basic human rights, a path to freedom


If you had any sense you'd be embarrassed by your statement.  At the start of the war Lincoln was not asking for any of those things.  He stated clearly that he was fighting the war to preserve the Union.


----------



## Thunderbird

Unkotare said:


> The traitors brought their inevitable doom down upon themselves by committing an act of war.


The incident at Fort Sumter could have been ignored.  Statesmen who value peace have overlooked far worse provocations.


> Well, they got war. There was none until they opened fire. Moving troops within one nation is not an "invasion."


The South had no interest in invading the North.  The blame goes to Lincoln.


----------



## Unkotare

Thunderbird said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The traitors brought their inevitable doom down upon themselves by committing an act of war.
> 
> 
> 
> The incident at Fort Sumter could have been ignored.  ...
Click to expand...



An act of war "could have been ignored"? Are you fucking high, Johnny Reb?


----------



## RKMBrown

Unkotare said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you ya liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the actual FACTS of history make you uncomfortable, that's just too fucking bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you ya liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Spam won't change the actual FACTS of history any more than painting the Confederate flag on the roof of your car will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The NORTH invaded the south DUMB ASS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The traitors brought their inevitable doom down upon themselves by committing an act of war. Well, they got war. There was none until they opened fire. Moving troops within one nation is not an "invasion." The traitorous dogs were hunted down and punished less than they deserved.
Click to expand...

You can't be this stupid.  The northern brigade or whatever refused to leave the south.  They got chased off without a SINGLE PERSON GETTING INJURED.  Then Lincoln sent an army down south to invade the south and kill millions.


----------



## rightwinger

Thunderbird said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The writing was on the wall that the days of slavery were numbered.
> 
> 
> 
> True.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No question the south could have compromised
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They should have begun the process of allowing slaves more autonomy, basic human rights, a path to freedom
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you had any sense you'd be embarrassed by your statement.  At the start of the war Lincoln was not asking for any of those things.  He stated clearly that he was fighting the war to preserve the Union.
Click to expand...

Well then what should Lincoln have compromised when the South seceded even before he took office?
If the south was so willing to compromise on slavery, why didn't they even talk to Lincoln?
The south preferred to set up their slavery mecca


----------



## Unkotare

RKMBrown said:


> The northern brigade or whatever refused to leave the south.  They got chased off without a SINGLE PERSON GETTING INJURED.  Then Lincoln sent an army down south to invade the south and kill millions.



"Or whatever"  

You are deliberately dishonest as well as willfully ignorant. The federal troops were in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA the day before, the day of, and the day after the traitors attacked them. The traitorous dogs attacked a federal garrison in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA without provocation, and thus began the war that they intended to begin. President Lincoln went to the extraordinary length of resupplying the federal garrison with provisions and not ammunition in remarkable and unnecessary consideration of would-be criminals who certainly merited no such magnanimity. The traitorous dogs intended a war and they got one, including all that came with it.


----------



## RKMBrown

Unkotare said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The northern brigade or whatever refused to leave the south.  They got chased off without a SINGLE PERSON GETTING INJURED.  Then Lincoln sent an army down south to invade the south and kill millions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Or whatever"
> 
> You are deliberately dishonest as well as willfully ignorant. The federal troops were in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA the day before, the day of, and the day after the traitors attacked them. The traitorous dogs attacked a federal garrison in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA without provocation, and thus began the war that they intended to begin. President Lincoln went to the extraordinary length of resupplying the federal garrison with provisions and not ammunition in remarkable and unnecessary consideration of would-be criminals who certainly merited no such magnanimity. The traitorous dogs intended a war and they got one, including all that came with it.
Click to expand...

Liar. Ft. Sumter is in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.  Oh and fuck you.


----------



## Unkotare

RKMBrown said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The northern brigade or whatever refused to leave the south.  They got chased off without a SINGLE PERSON GETTING INJURED.  Then Lincoln sent an army down south to invade the south and kill millions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Or whatever"
> 
> You are deliberately dishonest as well as willfully ignorant. The federal troops were in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA the day before, the day of, and the day after the traitors attacked them. The traitorous dogs attacked a federal garrison in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA without provocation, and thus began the war that they intended to begin. President Lincoln went to the extraordinary length of resupplying the federal garrison with provisions and not ammunition in remarkable and unnecessary consideration of would-be criminals who certainly merited no such magnanimity. The traitorous dogs intended a war and they got one, including all that came with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar. Oh and fuck you.
Click to expand...



Gonna spam some more, professor?


----------



## RKMBrown

Unkotare said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The northern brigade or whatever refused to leave the south.  They got chased off without a SINGLE PERSON GETTING INJURED.  Then Lincoln sent an army down south to invade the south and kill millions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Or whatever"
> 
> You are deliberately dishonest as well as willfully ignorant. The federal troops were in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA the day before, the day of, and the day after the traitors attacked them. The traitorous dogs attacked a federal garrison in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA without provocation, and thus began the war that they intended to begin. President Lincoln went to the extraordinary length of resupplying the federal garrison with provisions and not ammunition in remarkable and unnecessary consideration of would-be criminals who certainly merited no such magnanimity. The traitorous dogs intended a war and they got one, including all that came with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar. Oh and fuck you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gonna spam some more, professor?
Click to expand...

check where sumter is dumb ass..


----------



## Unkotare

RKMBrown said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The northern brigade or whatever refused to leave the south.  They got chased off without a SINGLE PERSON GETTING INJURED.  Then Lincoln sent an army down south to invade the south and kill millions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Or whatever"
> 
> You are deliberately dishonest as well as willfully ignorant. The federal troops were in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA the day before, the day of, and the day after the traitors attacked them. The traitorous dogs attacked a federal garrison in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA without provocation, and thus began the war that they intended to begin. President Lincoln went to the extraordinary length of resupplying the federal garrison with provisions and not ammunition in remarkable and unnecessary consideration of would-be criminals who certainly merited no such magnanimity. The traitorous dogs intended a war and they got one, including all that came with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar. Oh and fuck you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gonna spam some more, professor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> check where sumter [sic] is dumb ass..
Click to expand...




It's where it always was - in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.


----------



## RKMBrown

Unkotare said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The northern brigade or whatever refused to leave the south.  They got chased off without a SINGLE PERSON GETTING INJURED.  Then Lincoln sent an army down south to invade the south and kill millions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Or whatever"
> 
> You are deliberately dishonest as well as willfully ignorant. The federal troops were in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA the day before, the day of, and the day after the traitors attacked them. The traitorous dogs attacked a federal garrison in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA without provocation, and thus began the war that they intended to begin. President Lincoln went to the extraordinary length of resupplying the federal garrison with provisions and not ammunition in remarkable and unnecessary consideration of would-be criminals who certainly merited no such magnanimity. The traitorous dogs intended a war and they got one, including all that came with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar. Oh and fuck you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gonna spam some more, professor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> check where sumter [sic] is dumb ass..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's where it always was - in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Click to expand...

ROFL well at least you admit you lied. Resistance is futile lol


----------



## Unkotare

RKMBrown said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Or whatever"
> 
> You are deliberately dishonest as well as willfully ignorant. The federal troops were in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA the day before, the day of, and the day after the traitors attacked them. The traitorous dogs attacked a federal garrison in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA without provocation, and thus began the war that they intended to begin. President Lincoln went to the extraordinary length of resupplying the federal garrison with provisions and not ammunition in remarkable and unnecessary consideration of would-be criminals who certainly merited no such magnanimity. The traitorous dogs intended a war and they got one, including all that came with it.
> 
> 
> 
> Liar. Oh and fuck you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gonna spam some more, professor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> check where sumter [sic] is dumb ass..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's where it always was - in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL well at least you admit you lied.
Click to expand...



I did no such thing. Lying is what you just did with that post.


----------



## RKMBrown

Unkotare said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liar. Oh and fuck you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gonna spam some more, professor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> check where sumter [sic] is dumb ass..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's where it always was - in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL well at least you admit you lied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did no such thing. Lying is what you just did with that post.
Click to expand...

Liar.  POS.  It's in one of the confederate states dumb ass.


----------



## Unkotare

RKMBrown said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gonna spam some more, professor?
> 
> 
> 
> check where sumter [sic] is dumb ass..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's where it always was - in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL well at least you admit you lied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did no such thing. Lying is what you just did with that post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.  POS.  It's in one of the confederate states dumb ass.
Click to expand...



The traitors claim to have left the Union was never legitimate. The Union armies punished a bunch of criminal dogs, and - unfortunately - many good men who had been misled by them.


----------



## gipper

Unkotare said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln did not have to invade the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederate traitors started the war. Everything that followed is on their unworthy heads.
Click to expand...


Using that logic, Truman's dropping two a-bombs on a defenseless nation, killing thousands of women and children, was justified because Japan started the war by attacking US military bases.

Logic according to some: the use of total war is justified, if your enemy attacks you first and it matters not if their attack caused any deaths or not.


----------



## rightwinger

gipper said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln did not have to invade the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederate traitors started the war. Everything that followed is on their unworthy heads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using that logic, Truman's dropping two a-bombs on a defenseless nation, killing thousands of women and children, was justified because Japan started the war by attacking US military bases.
> 
> Logic according to some: the use of total war is justified, if your enemy attacks you first and it matters not if their attack caused any deaths or not.
Click to expand...

 Yup


----------



## Unkotare

gipper said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln did not have to invade the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederate traitors started the war. Everything that followed is on their unworthy heads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using that logic, Truman's dropping two a-bombs on a defenseless nation, killing thousands of women and children, was justified because Japan started the war by attacking US military bases....
Click to expand...


If you want to go to extremes, by your reasoning every single death of any Japanese person during ALL of WWII was "bloodthirsty murder" committed by the US President, whoever that may have been. 

Do you dispute that the attack on Pearl Harbor marks the point where Japan instigated war with the US?


----------



## gipper

Unkotare said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln did not have to invade the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederate traitors started the war. Everything that followed is on their unworthy heads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using that logic, Truman's dropping two a-bombs on a defenseless nation, killing thousands of women and children, was justified because Japan started the war by attacking US military bases....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to go to extremes, by your reasoning every single death of any Japanese person during ALL of WWII was "bloodthirsty murder" committed by the US President, whoever that may have been.
> 
> Do you dispute that the attack on Pearl Harbor marks the point where Japan instigated war with the US?
Click to expand...


You have stated Lincoln was justified in committing total war against the South, because the South attacked first.  

Total war includes the wanton destruction of civilians and their property, on a vast scale.

The Japanese military attacked US military installations (not population centers) starting WWII...to say nothing of FDR's many manipulations to get the Japanese to do exactly what they did.  

Following your logic Truman was justified, like Lincoln, is committing total war on Japanese civilians since their military forces attacked first.  Hence, you must believe Truman's war crime of incinerating Hiroshima and Nagasaki was entirely justified, since the Japanese attacked first.

Since you attacked me first, I can kill you with impunity.  This is not logical or moral.


----------



## rightwinger

gipper said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln did not have to invade the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederate traitors started the war. Everything that followed is on their unworthy heads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using that logic, Truman's dropping two a-bombs on a defenseless nation, killing thousands of women and children, was justified because Japan started the war by attacking US military bases....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to go to extremes, by your reasoning every single death of any Japanese person during ALL of WWII was "bloodthirsty murder" committed by the US President, whoever that may have been.
> 
> Do you dispute that the attack on Pearl Harbor marks the point where Japan instigated war with the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have stated Lincoln was justified in committing total war against the South, because the South attacked first.
> 
> Total war includes the wanton destruction of civilians and their property, on a vast scale.
> 
> The Japanese military attacked US military installations (not population centers) starting WWII...to say nothing of FDR's many manipulations to get the Japanese to do exactly what they did.
> 
> Following your logic Truman was justified, like Lincoln, is committing total war on Japanese civilians since their military forces attacked first.  Hence, you must believe Truman's war crime of incinerating Hiroshima and Nagasaki was entirely justified, since the Japanese attacked first.
> 
> Since you attacked me first, I can kill you with impunity.  This is not logical or moral.
Click to expand...

 
Yup


----------



## gipper

rightwinger said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln did not have to invade the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederate traitors started the war. Everything that followed is on their unworthy heads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using that logic, Truman's dropping two a-bombs on a defenseless nation, killing thousands of women and children, was justified because Japan started the war by attacking US military bases....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to go to extremes, by your reasoning every single death of any Japanese person during ALL of WWII was "bloodthirsty murder" committed by the US President, whoever that may have been.
> 
> Do you dispute that the attack on Pearl Harbor marks the point where Japan instigated war with the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have stated Lincoln was justified in committing total war against the South, because the South attacked first.
> 
> Total war includes the wanton destruction of civilians and their property, on a vast scale.
> 
> The Japanese military attacked US military installations (not population centers) starting WWII...to say nothing of FDR's many manipulations to get the Japanese to do exactly what they did.
> 
> Following your logic Truman was justified, like Lincoln, is committing total war on Japanese civilians since their military forces attacked first.  Hence, you must believe Truman's war crime of incinerating Hiroshima and Nagasaki was entirely justified, since the Japanese attacked first.
> 
> Since you attacked me first, I can kill you with impunity.  This is not logical or moral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup
Click to expand...


Please go back to picking your nose and your ass.


----------



## Unkotare

gipper said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln did not have to invade the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederate traitors started the war. Everything that followed is on their unworthy heads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using that logic, Truman's dropping two a-bombs on a defenseless nation, killing thousands of women and children, was justified because Japan started the war by attacking US military bases....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to go to extremes, by your reasoning every single death of any Japanese person during ALL of WWII was "bloodthirsty murder" committed by the US President, whoever that may have been.
> 
> Do you dispute that the attack on Pearl Harbor marks the point where Japan instigated war with the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have stated Lincoln was justified in committing total war against the South, because the South attacked first. ...
Click to expand...


I didn't say that. I said that the war and all it entailed was on the heads of the traitors. As for the "murderous tyrant" bit, read the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural, or look at his stance on Reconstruction before he was assassinated.


----------



## rightwinger

What response did the South expect when they fired at Ft Sumter?

A shrug?


----------



## RKMBrown

Unkotare said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> check where sumter [sic] is dumb ass..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's where it always was - in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL well at least you admit you lied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did no such thing. Lying is what you just did with that post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.  POS.  It's in one of the confederate states dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The traitors claim to have left the Union was never legitimate. The Union armies punished a bunch of criminal dogs, and - unfortunately - many good men who had been misled by them.
Click to expand...

ROFL you heard it here folks.  Unkotare declares that there was no civil war between the north and the south... the south never left and the northern troops were really just punishing criminals.


----------



## RKMBrown

rightwinger said:


> What response did the South expect when they fired at Ft Sumter?
> 
> A shrug?


They expected them to leave.  Which they did.


----------



## RKMBrown

gipper said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln did not have to invade the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederate traitors started the war. Everything that followed is on their unworthy heads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using that logic, Truman's dropping two a-bombs on a defenseless nation, killing thousands of women and children, was justified because Japan started the war by attacking US military bases.
> 
> Logic according to some: the use of total war is justified, if your enemy attacks you first and it matters not if their attack caused any deaths or not.
Click to expand...

Ayup.. evidently destroying public property is justification for killing millions to an authoritarian.


----------



## rightwinger

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What response did the South expect when they fired at Ft Sumter?
> 
> A shrug?
> 
> 
> 
> They expected them to leave.  Which they did.
Click to expand...

 
Not too bright were they?

Firing on a US installation and you just expected them to leave? Southerners were not too bright were they?
But what do you expect from a people that would form a new country just so they could own other human beings?


----------



## RKMBrown

rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What response did the South expect when they fired at Ft Sumter?
> 
> A shrug?
> 
> 
> 
> They expected them to leave.  Which they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not too bright were they?
> 
> Firing on a US installation and you just expected them to leave? Southerners were not too bright were they?
> But what do you expect from a people that would form a new country just so they could own other human beings?
Click to expand...

Speaking of owning other human beings.. what about that 16th amendment. What about that civil war amendment that lets government take your life, your liberty, and your property for the good of the cause.


----------



## rightwinger

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What response did the South expect when they fired at Ft Sumter?
> 
> A shrug?
> 
> 
> 
> They expected them to leave.  Which they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not too bright were they?
> 
> Firing on a US installation and you just expected them to leave? Southerners were not too bright were they?
> But what do you expect from a people that would form a new country just so they could own other human beings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of owning other human beings.. what about that 16th amendment. What about that civil war amendment that lets government take your life, your liberty, and your property for the good of the cause.
Click to expand...

 
You obviously have no idea about what you are babbling about


----------



## RKMBrown

rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What response did the South expect when they fired at Ft Sumter?
> 
> A shrug?
> 
> 
> 
> They expected them to leave.  Which they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not too bright were they?
> 
> Firing on a US installation and you just expected them to leave? Southerners were not too bright were they?
> But what do you expect from a people that would form a new country just so they could own other human beings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of owning other human beings.. what about that 16th amendment. What about that civil war amendment that lets government take your life, your liberty, and your property for the good of the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously have no idea about what you are babbling about
Click to expand...

What's the difference between government taking your income, property, and life via "due process" of law, and a slave owner taking your income, property, and life via "due process" of law?  Can you elaborate on the difference?


----------



## rightwinger

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What response did the South expect when they fired at Ft Sumter?
> 
> A shrug?
> 
> 
> 
> They expected them to leave.  Which they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not too bright were they?
> 
> Firing on a US installation and you just expected them to leave? Southerners were not too bright were they?
> But what do you expect from a people that would form a new country just so they could own other human beings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of owning other human beings.. what about that 16th amendment. What about that civil war amendment that lets government take your life, your liberty, and your property for the good of the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously have no idea about what you are babbling about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's the difference between government taking your income, property, and life via "due process" of law, and a slave owner taking your income, property, and life via "due process" of law?  Can you elaborate on the difference?
Click to expand...

 Constitution says Congress has authority to levy taxes. Your state signed up to it

The "difference" is you have a right to vote....a slave doesn't


----------



## Dan Daly

Unkotare said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln did not have to invade the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederate traitors started the war. Everything that followed is on their unworthy heads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using that logic, Truman's dropping two a-bombs on a defenseless nation, killing thousands of women and children, was justified because Japan started the war by attacking US military bases....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to go to extremes, by your reasoning every single death of any Japanese person during ALL of WWII was "bloodthirsty murder" committed by the US President, whoever that may have been.
> 
> Do you dispute that the attack on Pearl Harbor marks the point where Japan instigated war with the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have stated Lincoln was justified in committing total war against the South, because the South attacked first. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say that. I said that the war and all it entailed was on the heads of the traitors. As for the "murderous tyrant" bit, read the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural, or look at his stance on Reconstruction before he was assassinated.
Click to expand...


Damned white of him to want to clean up the mess he created.


----------



## Dan Daly

rightwinger said:


> What response did the South expect when they fired at Ft Sumter?
> 
> A shrug?



Bigger than a breadbox, but something short of total destruction. 

Seriously, arrogance was rampant on both sides.  Each side expected the other to capitulate once they showed themselves to be "serious".  Nobody expected the scale of the war they got.


----------



## RKMBrown

rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> They expected them to leave.  Which they did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not too bright were they?
> 
> Firing on a US installation and you just expected them to leave? Southerners were not too bright were they?
> But what do you expect from a people that would form a new country just so they could own other human beings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of owning other human beings.. what about that 16th amendment. What about that civil war amendment that lets government take your life, your liberty, and your property for the good of the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously have no idea about what you are babbling about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's the difference between government taking your income, property, and life via "due process" of law, and a slave owner taking your income, property, and life via "due process" of law?  Can you elaborate on the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Constitution says Congress has authority to levy taxes. Your state signed up to it
> 
> The "difference" is you have a right to vote....a slave doesn't
Click to expand...

Why can't a slave vote?


----------



## rightwinger

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not too bright were they?
> 
> Firing on a US installation and you just expected them to leave? Southerners were not too bright were they?
> But what do you expect from a people that would form a new country just so they could own other human beings?
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of owning other human beings.. what about that 16th amendment. What about that civil war amendment that lets government take your life, your liberty, and your property for the good of the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously have no idea about what you are babbling about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's the difference between government taking your income, property, and life via "due process" of law, and a slave owner taking your income, property, and life via "due process" of law?  Can you elaborate on the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Constitution says Congress has authority to levy taxes. Your state signed up to it
> 
> The "difference" is you have a right to vote....a slave doesn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't a slave vote?
Click to expand...

 Not worthy of a response


----------



## RKMBrown

rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of owning other human beings.. what about that 16th amendment. What about that civil war amendment that lets government take your life, your liberty, and your property for the good of the cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously have no idea about what you are babbling about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's the difference between government taking your income, property, and life via "due process" of law, and a slave owner taking your income, property, and life via "due process" of law?  Can you elaborate on the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Constitution says Congress has authority to levy taxes. Your state signed up to it
> 
> The "difference" is you have a right to vote....a slave doesn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't a slave vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not worthy of a response
Click to expand...

Is that why women couldn't vote... they were slaves?


----------



## martybegan

Washington: Established the office as it was intended to be.
Lincoln: Preserved the Union. 
FDR: Wartime president record outweighs any concerns over the expansion of government 
Reagan: Cold war ended on Bush 1's tour, but he started the fire
Eisenhower: Highways and the start of the Civil rights movement.


----------



## OldUSAFSniper

There are many good Presidents.  Here are my top five:

George Washington:  Started it all.  Humble, intelligent, unbelievably gifted.  Imagine how fragile everything was at the beginning.
Abraham Lincoln:  The very definition of courage and leadership. 
Franklin Roosevelt:  The right man at the right time.  Remember his words to the Joint Chiefs before they come up with Doolittle's raid?
Ronald Reagan:  Turned around the disaster that was Jimmy Carter.  Started the fire that destroyed the Soviet Union. 
Theodore Roosevelt:  Talked tough and backed it up right when we needed it.  Colonial Europe feared this man.

Honorable Mentions:  Dwight Eisenhower, Andrew Jackson, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson.


----------



## Unkotare

RKMBrown said:


> Unkotare declares that there was no civil war between the north and the south... .



I never said that, douchebag. Wipe the shit out of your eyes.


----------



## Unkotare

Dan Daly said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederate traitors started the war. Everything that followed is on their unworthy heads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using that logic, Truman's dropping two a-bombs on a defenseless nation, killing thousands of women and children, was justified because Japan started the war by attacking US military bases....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to go to extremes, by your reasoning every single death of any Japanese person during ALL of WWII was "bloodthirsty murder" committed by the US President, whoever that may have been.
> 
> Do you dispute that the attack on Pearl Harbor marks the point where Japan instigated war with the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have stated Lincoln was justified in committing total war against the South, because the South attacked first. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say that. I said that the war and all it entailed was on the heads of the traitors. As for the "murderous tyrant" bit, read the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural, or look at his stance on Reconstruction before he was assassinated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damned white of him to want to clean up the mess he created.
Click to expand...



The "mess" was the fault of the traitorous dogs who were brought to heel.


----------



## Unkotare

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously have no idea about what you are babbling about
> 
> 
> 
> What's the difference between government taking your income, property, and life via "due process" of law, and a slave owner taking your income, property, and life via "due process" of law?  Can you elaborate on the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Constitution says Congress has authority to levy taxes. Your state signed up to it
> 
> The "difference" is you have a right to vote....a slave doesn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't a slave vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not worthy of a response
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that why women couldn't vote... they were slaves?
Click to expand...



There are not many posters here as hostile to logic as you are, champ.


----------



## gipper

Unkotare said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Using that logic, Truman's dropping two a-bombs on a defenseless nation, killing thousands of women and children, was justified because Japan started the war by attacking US military bases....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to go to extremes, by your reasoning every single death of any Japanese person during ALL of WWII was "bloodthirsty murder" committed by the US President, whoever that may have been.
> 
> Do you dispute that the attack on Pearl Harbor marks the point where Japan instigated war with the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have stated Lincoln was justified in committing total war against the South, because the South attacked first. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say that. I said that the war and all it entailed was on the heads of the traitors. As for the "murderous tyrant" bit, read the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural, or look at his stance on Reconstruction before he was assassinated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damned white of him to want to clean up the mess he created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The "mess" was the fault of the traitorous dogs who were brought to heel.
Click to expand...


Obama signs an executive order that is so draconian and tyrannical that some of the people rise up and resort to armed resistance, demanding independence.  

In your world, Obama is justified in killing them all and destroying their property because they are traitorous dogs...who dared to try leaving the beloved Union.

Do you fail to see how preposterous your position is?

*All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. -  Fascist Il Duce
The Union of these States is perpetual. - Statist Abe*


----------



## rightwinger

Obama signs an executive order that is so draconian and tyrannical that *some of the people rise up and resort to armed resistance*, demanding independence. 

Or else you could use the courts to invalidate the order

Your choice I guess


----------



## gipper

rightwinger said:


> Obama signs an executive order that is so draconian and tyrannical that *some of the people rise up and resort to armed resistance*, demanding independence.
> 
> Or else you could use the courts to invalidate the order
> 
> Your choice I guess



Good Lord you are ignorant.

Yeah...the South should have used the courts to grant them secession.


----------



## rightwinger

gipper said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama signs an executive order that is so draconian and tyrannical that *some of the people rise up and resort to armed resistance*, demanding independence.
> 
> Or else you could use the courts to invalidate the order
> 
> Your choice I guess
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good Lord you are ignorant.
> 
> Yeah...the South should have used the courts to grant them secession.
Click to expand...

 
The south should have used Congress to represent their political views. They should have used the courts to defend their so called "property rights". They should have used a free press to convince Americans that owning other human beings was good for the country

That is what patriotic Americans do

If you fail, you accept the fact that slavery is not acceptable in your country


----------



## Unkotare

gipper said:


> Obama signs an executive order that is so draconian and tyrannical that some of the people rise up and resort to armed resistance, demanding independence.
> 
> In your world, Obama is justified in killing them all and destroying their property because they are traitorous dogs...who dared to try leaving the beloved Union.
> 
> Do you fail to see how preposterous your position is?
> 
> *All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. -  Fascist Il Duce
> The Union of these States is perpetual. - Statist Abe*




a) Those last two quotes are absolutely NOT equivalent, and you know it, you dishonest POS. 

b) Lincoln signed no such executive order (quite the contrary), so your analogy is childishly false.

c) Do not attempt to put words in my mouth, you dishonest POS. You are not qualified.


----------



## gipper

Unkotare said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama signs an executive order that is so draconian and tyrannical that some of the people rise up and resort to armed resistance, demanding independence.
> 
> In your world, Obama is justified in killing them all and destroying their property because they are traitorous dogs...who dared to try leaving the beloved Union.
> 
> Do you fail to see how preposterous your position is?
> 
> *All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. -  Fascist Il Duce
> The Union of these States is perpetual. - Statist Abe*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a) Those last two quotes are absolutely NOT equivalent, and you know it, you dishonest POS.
> 
> b) Lincoln signed no such executive order (quite the contrary), so your analogy is childishly false.
> 
> c) Do not attempt to put words in my mouth, you dishonest POS. You are not qualified.
Click to expand...


Thank you for your nice post.

My posts have exposed you for your ignorance and intolerance and your love of the state.  

Don't blame me for your lack of knowledge.


----------



## Unkotare

gipper said:


> My posts have exposed you for your ignorance and intolerance and your love of the state.
> 
> .




Only in your paranoid little mind.


----------



## gipper

rightwinger said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama signs an executive order that is so draconian and tyrannical that *some of the people rise up and resort to armed resistance*, demanding independence.
> 
> Or else you could use the courts to invalidate the order
> 
> Your choice I guess
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good Lord you are ignorant.
> 
> Yeah...the South should have used the courts to grant them secession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The south should have used Congress to represent their political views. They should have used the courts to defend their so called "property rights". They should have used a free press to convince Americans that owning other human beings was good for the country
> 
> That is what patriotic Americans do
> 
> If you fail, you accept the fact that slavery is not acceptable in your country
Click to expand...


Your lack of knowledge on this subject is enormous.

Lincoln did not persecute the War of Northern Aggression to end slavery.  How could you not know this?

He went to war to FORCE people to stay part of a state, when those people no longer wished to be part of that state...and murdered them mercilessly.

The South made many efforts to avoid war...Lincoln made none...but you do not know the facts.


----------



## Unkotare

gipper said:


> Lincoln did not persecute the War of Northern Aggression to end slavery. ...




There was no such war, Johnny Reb. It was the American Civil War.


----------



## Unkotare

gipper said:


> The South made many efforts to avoid war...Lincoln made none....




You are completely ignorant, completely dishonest, or both. Likely both.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> In every Confederate state except South Carolina, entire regiments were formed to fight on behalf of the Union. More than 100,000 men from the south actively fought against the Confederacy during the war.




...........................................................


----------



## martybegan

gipper said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama signs an executive order that is so draconian and tyrannical that *some of the people rise up and resort to armed resistance*, demanding independence.
> 
> Or else you could use the courts to invalidate the order
> 
> Your choice I guess
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good Lord you are ignorant.
> 
> Yeah...the South should have used the courts to grant them secession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The south should have used Congress to represent their political views. They should have used the courts to defend their so called "property rights". They should have used a free press to convince Americans that owning other human beings was good for the country
> 
> That is what patriotic Americans do
> 
> If you fail, you accept the fact that slavery is not acceptable in your country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your lack of knowledge on this subject is enormous.
> 
> Lincoln did not persecute the War of Northern Aggression to end slavery.  How could you not know this?
> 
> He went to war to FORCE people to stay part of a state, when those people no longer wished to be part of that state...and murdered them mercilessly.
> 
> The South made many efforts to avoid war...Lincoln made none...but you do not know the facts.
Click to expand...


A country can only be dissolved with the consent of both the people leaving and the people staying. That is the lesson of the American Civil War.


----------



## martybegan

OldUSAFSniper said:


> There are many good Presidents.  Here are my top five:
> 
> George Washington:  Started it all.  Humble, intelligent, unbelievably gifted.  Imagine how fragile everything was at the beginning.
> Abraham Lincoln:  The very definition of courage and leadership.
> Franklin Roosevelt:  The right man at the right time.  Remember his words to the Joint Chiefs before they come up with Doolittle's raid?
> Ronald Reagan:  Turned around the disaster that was Jimmy Carter.  Started the fire that destroyed the Soviet Union.
> Theodore Roosevelt:  Talked tough and backed it up right when we needed it.  Colonial Europe feared this man.
> 
> Honorable Mentions:  Dwight Eisenhower, Andrew Jackson, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson.



Dammit, forgot about Teddy.


----------



## RKMBrown

Unkotare said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare declares that there was no civil war between the north and the south... .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that, douchebag. Wipe the shit out of your eyes.
Click to expand...

Make up your mind there was a north and south or not.  First you say the north was on their land, now you say there was a civil war.  Either the south split and the northern invaders started the war by occupying the south then sending armies down south to take the south back... or it was a police action and the south never split.  You can't have it both ways dumb ass.


----------



## Unkotare

RKMBrown said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare declares that there was no civil war between the north and the south... .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that, douchebag. Wipe the shit out of your eyes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make up your mind there was a north and south or not.  First you say the north was on their land, now you say there was a civil war.  Either the south split and the northern invaders started the war by occupying the south then sending armies down south to take the south back... or it was a police action and the south never split.  You can't have it both ways dumb ass.
Click to expand...



You are an ignorant buffoon. Do you even know what the term "civil war" means?


----------



## RKMBrown

Unkotare said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare declares that there was no civil war between the north and the south... .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that, douchebag. Wipe the shit out of your eyes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make up your mind there was a north and south or not.  First you say the north was on their land, now you say there was a civil war.  Either the south split and the northern invaders started the war by occupying the south then sending armies down south to take the south back... or it was a police action and the south never split.  You can't have it both ways dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are an ignorant buffoon. Do you even know what the term "civil war" means?
Click to expand...

Make up your mind. Was the north occupying the south, YES or NO?  After south carolina seceded did the troops from the north leave south carolina as told, yes or NO?  You claimed the south started the fight.  You are either the dumbest guy on the planet or lying.


----------



## Unkotare

Do you know what the term "civil war" means?


----------



## Unkotare

NO country recognized 'the Confederacy' as a separate, sovereign nation - ever. It was the traitors only hope that at least a few would, but none did.


----------



## RKMBrown

Unkotare said:


> NO country recognized 'the Confederacy' as a separate, sovereign nation - ever. It was the traitors only hope that at least a few would, but none did.


Yes or no dumb ass.  Did south carolina secede.  YES OR NO?


----------



## guno

Unkotare said:


> Washington
> Jefferson
> Lincoln
> Reagan
> W




FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT- gave people hope through Great Depression and WW II

Harry Truman -finished off the nips


----------



## Unkotare

RKMBrown said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO country recognized 'the Confederacy' as a separate, sovereign nation - ever. It was the traitors only hope that at least a few would, but none did.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes or no dumb ass.  Did south carolina secede.  YES OR NO?
Click to expand...



The traitors 'declarations' were never legitimate and were never recognized as such. Just how fucking stupid are you?


----------



## RKMBrown

Unkotare said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO country recognized 'the Confederacy' as a separate, sovereign nation - ever. It was the traitors only hope that at least a few would, but none did.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes or no dumb ass.  Did south carolina secede.  YES OR NO?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The traitors 'declarations' were never legitimate and were never recognized as such. Just how fucking stupid are you?
Click to expand...

Your an idiot.  There is no liberty then.  What you are talking about is a prisoner society in which states can join but they can never leave, and if they try they will be murdered.


----------



## rightwinger

gipper said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama signs an executive order that is so draconian and tyrannical that *some of the people rise up and resort to armed resistance*, demanding independence.
> 
> Or else you could use the courts to invalidate the order
> 
> Your choice I guess
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good Lord you are ignorant.
> 
> Yeah...the South should have used the courts to grant them secession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The south should have used Congress to represent their political views. They should have used the courts to defend their so called "property rights". They should have used a free press to convince Americans that owning other human beings was good for the country
> 
> That is what patriotic Americans do
> 
> If you fail, you accept the fact that slavery is not acceptable in your country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your lack of knowledge on this subject is enormous.
> 
> Lincoln did not persecute the War of Northern Aggression to end slavery.  How could you not know this?
> 
> He went to war to FORCE people to stay part of a state, when those people no longer wished to be part of that state...and murdered them mercilessly.
> 
> The South made many efforts to avoid war...Lincoln made none...but you do not know the facts.
Click to expand...

 
Still trying to sell that revisionist crap aren't you?

Lincoln wanted to "preserve the union"
The South broke up the union because of a desire to maintain slavery

Therefore the war was about slavery....no matter how you spin it


----------



## Unkotare

RKMBrown said:


> Your [sic] an idiot.  ...


----------



## Roadrunner

RKMBrown said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare declares that there was no civil war between the north and the south... .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that, douchebag. Wipe the shit out of your eyes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make up your mind there was a north and south or not.  First you say the north was on their land, now you say there was a civil war.  Either the south split and the northern invaders started the war by occupying the south then sending armies down south to take the south back... or it was a police action and the south never split.  You can't have it both ways dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are an ignorant buffoon. Do you even know what the term "civil war" means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make up your mind. Was the north occupying the south, YES or NO?  After south carolina seceded did the troops from the north leave south carolina as told, yes or NO?  You claimed the south started the fight.  You are either the dumbest guy on the planet or lying.
Click to expand...

The South fired the first shots.

Way stupid.


----------



## RKMBrown

Unkotare said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your [sic] an idiot.  ...
Click to expand...

I thought you'd like that.


----------



## Unkotare

RKMBrown said:


> and if they try they will be murdered.




You need to stop trying to use words you do not understand, like all of the words in the English language. You are one painfully stupid SOB.


----------



## Roadrunner

Unkotare said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO country recognized 'the Confederacy' as a separate, sovereign nation - ever. It was the traitors only hope that at least a few would, but none did.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes or no dumb ass.  Did south carolina secede.  YES OR NO?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The traitors 'declarations' were never legitimate and were never recognized as such. Just how fucking stupid are you?
Click to expand...

You are wrong.

Secession was recognized, because the Confederate states had to be re-admitted to the Union, individually.


----------



## Unkotare

RKMBrown said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your [sic] an idiot.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought you'd like that.
Click to expand...



Yeah, sure you did.


----------



## RKMBrown

Roadrunner said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare declares that there was no civil war between the north and the south... .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that, douchebag. Wipe the shit out of your eyes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make up your mind there was a north and south or not.  First you say the north was on their land, now you say there was a civil war.  Either the south split and the northern invaders started the war by occupying the south then sending armies down south to take the south back... or it was a police action and the south never split.  You can't have it both ways dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are an ignorant buffoon. Do you even know what the term "civil war" means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make up your mind. Was the north occupying the south, YES or NO?  After south carolina seceded did the troops from the north leave south carolina as told, yes or NO?  You claimed the south started the fight.  You are either the dumbest guy on the planet or lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South fired the first shots.
> 
> Way stupid.
Click to expand...

The north refused to leave.  Firing a shot in the air and hitting no one.  Is a warning shot.  In response the north sent armies down to kill women and children.


----------



## JWBooth

William Henry Harrison, he set a standard all of his successors should have followed.


----------



## Unkotare

Roadrunner said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO country recognized 'the Confederacy' as a separate, sovereign nation - ever. It was the traitors only hope that at least a few would, but none did.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes or no dumb ass.  Did south carolina secede.  YES OR NO?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The traitors 'declarations' were never legitimate and were never recognized as such. Just how fucking stupid are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are wrong.
> 
> Secession was recognized, because the Confederate states had to be re-admitted to the Union, individually.
Click to expand...



State governments had to be reformed. No country recognized 'the Confederacy,' including the United States of America.


----------



## Unkotare

RKMBrown said:


> The north refused to leave.  ...




Leave our own country? Gee, imagine that.


----------



## RKMBrown

Unkotare said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The north refused to leave.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leave our own country? Gee, imagine that.
Click to expand...

Yes or no dumb ass did South Carolina secede, YES OR NO?  CAN YOU EVEN TYPE THE WORDS "YES" OR "NO?"


----------



## Unkotare

RKMBrown said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The north refused to leave.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leave our own country? Gee, imagine that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes or no dumb ass did South Carolina secede, YES OR NO?  CAN YOU EVEN TYPE THE WORDS "YES" OR "NO?"
Click to expand...



I've responded to your question at least five times now, you drooling moron.


----------



## guno

rightwinger said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama signs an executive order that is so draconian and tyrannical that *some of the people rise up and resort to armed resistance*, demanding independence.
> 
> Or else you could use the courts to invalidate the order
> 
> Your choice I guess
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good Lord you are ignorant.
> 
> Yeah...the South should have used the courts to grant them secession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The south should have used Congress to represent their political views. They should have used the courts to defend their so called "property rights". They should have used a free press to convince Americans that owning other human beings was good for the country
> 
> That is what patriotic Americans do
> 
> If you fail, you accept the fact that slavery is not acceptable in your country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your lack of knowledge on this subject is enormous.
> 
> Lincoln did not persecute the War of Northern Aggression to end slavery.  How could you not know this?
> 
> He went to war to FORCE people to stay part of a state, when those people no longer wished to be part of that state...and murdered them mercilessly.
> 
> The South made many efforts to avoid war...Lincoln made none...but you do not know the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still trying to sell that revisionist crap aren't you?
> 
> Lincoln wanted to "preserve the union"
> The South broke up the union because of a desire to maintain slavery
> 
> Therefore the war was about slavery....no matter how you spin it
Click to expand...



and if it wasn't about slavery  why did the cracker states institute jim crow laws after they got their cracker asses whipped in the war


----------



## Unkotare

guno said:


> and if it wasn't about slavery  why did the cracker states institute jim crow laws after they got their cracker asses whipped in the war





Aw, Batshit Boy the racist needs more attention. The poor little thing.


----------



## Roadrunner

RKMBrown said:


> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that, douchebag. Wipe the shit out of your eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> Make up your mind there was a north and south or not.  First you say the north was on their land, now you say there was a civil war.  Either the south split and the northern invaders started the war by occupying the south then sending armies down south to take the south back... or it was a police action and the south never split.  You can't have it both ways dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are an ignorant buffoon. Do you even know what the term "civil war" means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make up your mind. Was the north occupying the south, YES or NO?  After south carolina seceded did the troops from the north leave south carolina as told, yes or NO?  You claimed the south started the fight.  You are either the dumbest guy on the planet or lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South fired the first shots.
> 
> Way stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The north refused to leave.  Firing a shot in the air and hitting no one.  Is a warning shot.  In response the north sent armies down to kill women and children.
Click to expand...

Ft. Sumter bombardment was not a warning shot in the air.

It was stupidity.


----------



## RKMBrown

Unkotare said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The north refused to leave.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leave our own country? Gee, imagine that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes or no dumb ass did South Carolina secede, YES OR NO?  CAN YOU EVEN TYPE THE WORDS "YES" OR "NO?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've responded to your question at least five times now, you drooling moron.
Click to expand...

No you've deflected dozens of times. Your declaration that states can't secede therefore there was no secession and thus there was no occupation going on is TOTAL BULLSHIT.


----------



## RKMBrown

Roadrunner said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make up your mind there was a north and south or not.  First you say the north was on their land, now you say there was a civil war.  Either the south split and the northern invaders started the war by occupying the south then sending armies down south to take the south back... or it was a police action and the south never split.  You can't have it both ways dumb ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are an ignorant buffoon. Do you even know what the term "civil war" means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make up your mind. Was the north occupying the south, YES or NO?  After south carolina seceded did the troops from the north leave south carolina as told, yes or NO?  You claimed the south started the fight.  You are either the dumbest guy on the planet or lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South fired the first shots.
> 
> Way stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The north refused to leave.  Firing a shot in the air and hitting no one.  Is a warning shot.  In response the north sent armies down to kill women and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ft. Sumter bombardment was not a warning shot in the air.
> 
> It was stupidity.
Click to expand...

Anyone get hurt?


----------



## rightwinger

FDR repealed Prohibition

Automatically makes him one of our greatest presidents


----------



## RKMBrown

rightwinger said:


> FDR repealed Prohibition
> 
> Automatically makes him one of our greatest presidents


ROFL... I had no idea a president could amend the constitution.


----------



## Unkotare

RKMBrown said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The north refused to leave.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leave our own country? Gee, imagine that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes or no dumb ass did South Carolina secede, YES OR NO?  CAN YOU EVEN TYPE THE WORDS "YES" OR "NO?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've responded to your question at least five times now, you drooling moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you've deflected dozens of times. ...
Click to expand...


Your inability to read is your problem.


----------



## PredFan

I don't admire presidents, especially any if the ones of the past 100 years.
The only thing any if them are good at is getting elected. I don't admire the presidents before that either. I admire the founding fathers but not because they became presidents. The president is a public servant, or supposed to be anyway.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

TheOldSchool said:


> 1.  Teddy Roosevelt - the most badass of all Presidents.  We could use someone with his stones today.
> 
> 2.  James Monroe - the Monroe doctrine should never have been abandoned
> 
> 3.  Thomas Jefferson - founding father, declaration of independence, Louisiana purchase
> 
> 4.  George Washington - for obvious reasons
> 
> 5.  Abe Lincoln - saved the Union


 much better choice than the OP's.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

heirtothewind said:


> FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT- gave people hope through Great Depression and WW II
> 
> ABRAHAM LINCOLN- dealt with Civil War and still attended to westward expansion
> 
> LYNDON JOHNSON- enforced civil rights and tried to build the Great Society
> 
> GEORGE WASHINGTON- set precedents for use of executive power
> 
> THEODORE ROOSEVELT- proved he was not a puppet president like his predecessor


 
Hhave no problem with three of your choices.major problem with FDR and johnson though.its a well known fact that LBJ was involved in the JFK assassination and had a huge hand in the coverup and that he reversed JFK's policy to withdrawn completely from vietnam by 1965 He was one of those puppet presidents for the establishment you mentioned.
He also took credit for the civil rights act because that was something he he had to use to get himself elected in 64.

In his prior years in the senate,it was well known that he was a racist. Johnson used his power he held as senate majority leader to block JFK's civil rights act to get pased so HE could pass it and take credit for it to have his place in history.Its well known that JFK was the one that got the civil rights movement started.

and its documented that FDR pruposely allowed the japenese to bonb pearl harbour and thats just a myth that he heled us throught the depression.a myth concoted by our corrutp school system.this is the "REAL" FDR exposed.

Tough Questions for Defenders of the New Deal Cato Institute


----------



## Unkotare

The conspiracy nut can't manage a single, coherent sentence in English.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

someone farted in here after my last post..^


----------



## RKMBrown

Unkotare said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The north refused to leave.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leave our own country? Gee, imagine that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes or no dumb ass did South Carolina secede, YES OR NO?  CAN YOU EVEN TYPE THE WORDS "YES" OR "NO?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've responded to your question at least five times now, you drooling moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you've deflected dozens of times. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your inability to read is your problem.
Click to expand...

^ numb nutz can't answer a simple question without deflecting.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

RKMBrown said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Leave our own country? Gee, imagine that.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes or no dumb ass did South Carolina secede, YES OR NO?  CAN YOU EVEN TYPE THE WORDS "YES" OR "NO?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've responded to your question at least five times now, you drooling moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you've deflected dozens of times. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your inability to read is your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^ numb nutz can't answer a simple question without deflecting.
Click to expand...

 hey brainwashed reagan fool,the troll is on my ignore list cause he is eveb  a far bigger troll than even you.Like you,he only sees what he WANTS to see so its like talking to a wall,you reagan zombie worshippers only see what you want to see.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

9/11 inside job said:


> heirtothewind said:
> 
> 
> 
> FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT- gave people hope through Great Depression and WW II
> 
> ABRAHAM LINCOLN- dealt with Civil War and still attended to westward expansion
> 
> LYNDON JOHNSON- enforced civil rights and tried to build the Great Society
> 
> GEORGE WASHINGTON- set precedents for use of executive power
> 
> THEODORE ROOSEVELT- proved he was not a puppet president like his predecessor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hhave no problem with three of your choices.major problem with FDR and johnson though.its a well known fact that LBJ was involved in the JFK assassination and had a huge hand in the coverup and that he reversed JFK's policy to withdrawn completely from vietnam by 1965 He was one of those puppet presidents for the establishment you mentioned.
> He also took credit for the civil rights act because that was something he he had to use to get himself elected in 64.
> 
> In his prior years in the senate,it was well known that he was a racist. Johnson used his power he held as senate majority leader to block JFK's civil rights act to get pased so HE could pass it and take credit for it to have his place in history.Its well known that JFK was the one that got the civil rights movement started.
> 
> and its documented that FDR pruposely allowed the japenese to bonb pearl harbour and thats just a myth that he heled us throught the depression.a myth concoted by our corrutp school system.this is the "REAL" FDR exposed.
> 
> Tough Questions for Defenders of the New Deal Cato Institute
Click to expand...

  everything that fellow troll buddy of yours wants to ask is all answered in this post fool.


----------



## RKMBrown

9/11 inside job said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes or no dumb ass did South Carolina secede, YES OR NO?  CAN YOU EVEN TYPE THE WORDS "YES" OR "NO?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've responded to your question at least five times now, you drooling moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you've deflected dozens of times. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your inability to read is your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^ numb nutz can't answer a simple question without deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hey brainwashed reagan fool,the troll is on my ignore list cause he is eveb  a far bigger troll than even you.Like you,he only sees what he WANTS to see so its like talking to a wall,you reagan zombie worshippers only see what you want to see.
Click to expand...

Reagan wasn't perfect.  Reagan admitted his worst mistakes.   I don't worship any man.  Reagan was better than most.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

RKMBrown said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've responded to your question at least five times now, you drooling moron.
> 
> 
> 
> No you've deflected dozens of times. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your inability to read is your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^ numb nutz can't answer a simple question without deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hey brainwashed reagan fool,the troll is on my ignore list cause he is eveb  a far bigger troll than even you.Like you,he only sees what he WANTS to see so its like talking to a wall,you reagan zombie worshippers only see what you want to see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reagan wasn't perfect.  Reagan admitted his worst mistakes.   I don't worship any man.  Reagan was better than most.
Click to expand...

 
sure you dont worship him,thats why you make up lies that he was better than most when he was the most corrupt ever at the time. you reagannit worshippers never have any answers for these facts which is why i have that other troll you are talking about me not answering some idiot question i have no doubt he posed because like you,he cant acknowledge this truth here on reagan among other things of governemtn corruption.


----------



## RKMBrown

9/11 inside job said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you've deflected dozens of times. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to read is your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^ numb nutz can't answer a simple question without deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hey brainwashed reagan fool,the troll is on my ignore list cause he is eveb  a far bigger troll than even you.Like you,he only sees what he WANTS to see so its like talking to a wall,you reagan zombie worshippers only see what you want to see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reagan wasn't perfect.  Reagan admitted his worst mistakes.   I don't worship any man.  Reagan was better than most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sure you dont worship him,thats why you make up lies that he was better than most when he was the most corrupt ever at the time. you reagannit worshippers never have any answers for these facts which is why i have that other troll you are talking about me not answering some idiot question i have no doubt he posed because like you,he cant acknowledge this truth here on reagan among other things of governemtn corruption.
Click to expand...

ROFL


----------



## LA RAM FAN

RKMBrown said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to read is your problem.
> 
> 
> 
> ^ numb nutz can't answer a simple question without deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hey brainwashed reagan fool,the troll is on my ignore list cause he is even  a far bigger troll than even you.Like you,he only sees what he WANTS to see so its like talking to a wall,you reagan zombie worshippers only see what you want to see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reagan wasn't perfect.  Reagan admitted his worst mistakes.   I don't worship any man.  Reagan was better than most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sure you dont worship him,thats why you make up lies that he was better than most when he was the most corrupt ever at the time. you reagannit worshippers never have any answers for these facts which is why i have that other troll you are talking about me not answering some idiot question i have no doubt he posed because like you,he cant acknowledge this truth here on reagan among other things of governemtn corruption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL
Click to expand...

you didnt give me a chance to finish. you reagan trolls play dodgeball with these facts that he is indeed a mass murderer.a FACT you cant get around and are too scared to look at the evidence.you know it,i know it.

see i only bother with trolls like you because with you,this is the only time you troll is playing dodgeball with these facts on reagan,that troll buddy of yours plays dodgeball ALL THE TIME on EVERYTHING that exposes  government corruption,so i put that idiot on ignore years ago.only he is too stupid to get that.

Ronald Reagan No Hero


----------



## Unkotare

RKMBrown said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Leave our own country? Gee, imagine that.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes or no dumb ass did South Carolina secede, YES OR NO?  CAN YOU EVEN TYPE THE WORDS "YES" OR "NO?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've responded to your question at least five times now, you drooling moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you've deflected dozens of times. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your inability to read is your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^ can't answer a simple question without deflecting.
Click to expand...


You mean the question I've already addressed over and over and over again? How's that remedial reading class going, genius?


----------



## RKMBrown

Unkotare said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes or no dumb ass did South Carolina secede, YES OR NO?  CAN YOU EVEN TYPE THE WORDS "YES" OR "NO?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've responded to your question at least five times now, you drooling moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you've deflected dozens of times. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your inability to read is your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^ can't answer a simple question without deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the question I've already addressed over and over and over again? How's that remedial reading class going, genius?
Click to expand...

Yes or no butt hole.  Did south Carolina secede, YES or NO?


----------



## rightwinger

RKMBrown said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've responded to your question at least five times now, you drooling moron.
> 
> 
> 
> No you've deflected dozens of times. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your inability to read is your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^ numb nutz can't answer a simple question without deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hey brainwashed reagan fool,the troll is on my ignore list cause he is eveb  a far bigger troll than even you.Like you,he only sees what he WANTS to see so its like talking to a wall,you reagan zombie worshippers only see what you want to see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reagan wasn't perfect.  Reagan admitted his worst mistakes.   I don't worship any man.  Reagan was better than most.
Click to expand...

 
Actually, Reagan said he didn't remember his worst mistakes


----------



## RKMBrown

rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you've deflected dozens of times. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to read is your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^ numb nutz can't answer a simple question without deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hey brainwashed reagan fool,the troll is on my ignore list cause he is eveb  a far bigger troll than even you.Like you,he only sees what he WANTS to see so its like talking to a wall,you reagan zombie worshippers only see what you want to see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reagan wasn't perfect.  Reagan admitted his worst mistakes.   I don't worship any man.  Reagan was better than most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, Reagan said he didn't remember his worst mistakes
Click to expand...

That's an Alzheimer's joke


----------



## rightwinger

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to read is your problem.
> 
> 
> 
> ^ numb nutz can't answer a simple question without deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hey brainwashed reagan fool,the troll is on my ignore list cause he is eveb  a far bigger troll than even you.Like you,he only sees what he WANTS to see so its like talking to a wall,you reagan zombie worshippers only see what you want to see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reagan wasn't perfect.  Reagan admitted his worst mistakes.   I don't worship any man.  Reagan was better than most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, Reagan said he didn't remember his worst mistakes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's an Alzheimer's joke
Click to expand...

 
No, that is what he actually said about Iran-Contra


----------



## RKMBrown

rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^ numb nutz can't answer a simple question without deflecting.
> 
> 
> 
> hey brainwashed reagan fool,the troll is on my ignore list cause he is eveb  a far bigger troll than even you.Like you,he only sees what he WANTS to see so its like talking to a wall,you reagan zombie worshippers only see what you want to see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reagan wasn't perfect.  Reagan admitted his worst mistakes.   I don't worship any man.  Reagan was better than most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, Reagan said he didn't remember his worst mistakes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's an Alzheimer's joke
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that is what he actually said about Iran-Contra
Click to expand...

Yeah well I guess that's a problem Obama has as well.  Guy never knows anything about what he's done or is going on.


----------



## Unkotare

RKMBrown said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've responded to your question at least five times now, you drooling moron.
> 
> 
> 
> No you've deflected dozens of times. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your inability to read is your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^ can't answer a simple question without deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the question I've already addressed over and over and over again? How's that remedial reading class going, genius?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes or no butt hole.  Did south Carolina secede, YES or NO?
Click to expand...



Stop spamming, troll. Your idiotic question has been addressed many times.


----------



## RKMBrown

Unkotare said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you've deflected dozens of times. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to read is your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^ can't answer a simple question without deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the question I've already addressed over and over and over again? How's that remedial reading class going, genius?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes or no butt hole.  Did south Carolina secede, YES or NO?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Stop spamming, troll. Your idiotic question has been addressed many times.
Click to expand...

Yes or no butt hole. Did south Carolina secede, YES or NO?


----------



## LA RAM FAN

rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^ numb nutz can't answer a simple question without deflecting.
> 
> 
> 
> hey brainwashed reagan fool,the troll is on my ignore list cause he is eveb  a far bigger troll than even you.Like you,he only sees what he WANTS to see so its like talking to a wall,you reagan zombie worshippers only see what you want to see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reagan wasn't perfect.  Reagan admitted his worst mistakes.   I don't worship any man.  Reagan was better than most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, Reagan said he didn't remember his worst mistakes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's an Alzheimer's joke
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that is what he actually said about Iran-Contra
Click to expand...

 reagan was like you,could never open his mouth without lying.lol  no wonder you love him so much.lol.


----------



## Dan Daly

Unkotare said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama signs an executive order that is so draconian and tyrannical that some of the people rise up and resort to armed resistance, demanding independence.
> 
> In your world, Obama is justified in killing them all and destroying their property because they are traitorous dogs...who dared to try leaving the beloved Union.
> 
> Do you fail to see how preposterous your position is?
> 
> *All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. -  Fascist Il Duce
> The Union of these States is perpetual. - Statist Abe*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a) Those last two quotes are absolutely NOT equivalent, and you know it, you dishonest POS.
> 
> b) Lincoln signed no such executive order (quite the contrary), so your analogy is childishly false.
> 
> c) Do not attempt to put words in my mouth, you dishonest POS. You are not qualified.
Click to expand...


Still sticking to the "it's invalid because I say so" fallacy I see.  When you can debate with more intelligence than a box of rocks, let me know, sweetie...and I might take you seriously.  But till then, you have my sympathy for your handicap and I hope you can overcome your social and intellectual deficiencies some day.


----------



## Unkotare

Dan Daly said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama signs an executive order that is so draconian and tyrannical that some of the people rise up and resort to armed resistance, demanding independence.
> 
> In your world, Obama is justified in killing them all and destroying their property because they are traitorous dogs...who dared to try leaving the beloved Union.
> 
> Do you fail to see how preposterous your position is?
> 
> *All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. -  Fascist Il Duce
> The Union of these States is perpetual. - Statist Abe*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a) Those last two quotes are absolutely NOT equivalent, and you know it, you dishonest POS.
> 
> b) Lincoln signed no such executive order (quite the contrary), so your analogy is childishly false.
> 
> c) Do not attempt to put words in my mouth, you dishonest POS. You are not qualified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still sticking to the "it's invalid because I say so" fallacy I see.  ...
Click to expand...



No, still responding with FACTS. I see you still have trouble with reading comprehension and are still trying to throw around words like "fallacy" that you clearly do not understand. Maybe someday when you learn to read well you can study a little logic. That way, you might - just might - have the slightest clue what you're talking about.


----------



## Dan Daly

Unkotare said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama signs an executive order that is so draconian and tyrannical that some of the people rise up and resort to armed resistance, demanding independence.
> 
> In your world, Obama is justified in killing them all and destroying their property because they are traitorous dogs...who dared to try leaving the beloved Union.
> 
> Do you fail to see how preposterous your position is?
> 
> *All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. -  Fascist Il Duce
> The Union of these States is perpetual. - Statist Abe*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a) Those last two quotes are absolutely NOT equivalent, and you know it, you dishonest POS.
> 
> b) Lincoln signed no such executive order (quite the contrary), so your analogy is childishly false.
> 
> c) Do not attempt to put words in my mouth, you dishonest POS. You are not qualified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still sticking to the "it's invalid because I say so" fallacy I see.  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, still responding with FACTS. I see you still have trouble with reading comprehension and are still trying to throw around words like "fallacy" that you clearly do not understand. Maybe someday when you learn to read well you can study a little logic. That way, you might - just might - have the slightest clue what you're talking about.
Click to expand...


The biggest fallacy is that you think you have the faintest idea of what logic is.  You don't.  You're a moron.  Sorry, if you don't want to be considered a moron, don't be a moron.  I know it's hard, and the thought of me seeing you for the moron you are makes you whine and cry as you bluff and bluster.  All I can do is offer you a tissue to wipe your tears of helplessness.


----------



## Unkotare

Dan Daly said:


> The biggest fallacy is that you think you have the faintest idea of what logic is.  You don't.  ...




Really? That's funny because I have actually studied the subject extensively, whereas you just think it's a word that means "agree with me!" It's time for you to stop digging that hole you're in, champ.


----------



## whitehall

Dick Nixon ended LBJ's war in Vietnam and presided over the moon landing which was the most amazing feat in human existence.


----------



## Unkotare

whitehall said:


> Dick Nixon ended LBJ's war in Vietnam and presided over the moon landing which was the most amazing feat in human existence.




Those are good points, but I must point out that the scene near the end of the movie 'Wild Things' was the most amazing feat in human existence.


----------



## Drang nach Osten

Ronald Reagan.


----------



## Pogo

whitehall said:


> Dick Nixon ended LBJ's war in Vietnam and presided over the moon landing which was the most amazing feat in human existence.



Yeah that was pretty amazing how he put the whole space program together in six months.  Damn impressive.


----------



## Meathead

1 Reagan - obvious
2 Jefferson - also obvious
3 Polk - got his four targets done in 4 years
4 Washington - stature
5 Eisenhower- right man at right time


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Drang nach Osten said:


> Ronald Reagan.


thats some funny shit there. the brainwashed sheople.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Pogo said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Nixon ended LBJ's war in Vietnam and presided over the moon landing which was the most amazing feat in human existence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah that was pretty amazing how he put the whole space program together in six months.  Damn impressive.
Click to expand...

and murdered several thousands of american soldiers at the same time deliberately sabotaging the paris peace talks so the vietnam war would continue and he would keep serving his masters that wanted the war.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

whitehall said:


> Dick Nixon ended LBJ's war in Vietnam and presided over the moon landing which was the most amazing feat in human existence.



as always whitehall is brainwashed,he only ended it cause the american people forced him to putting pressure on the government with their protests.He could have ended it in 69 but he sabotoged LBJ's paris peace talks to keep the war going so he could get elected on his election campaine to end the war which he let drag on another four years.He was a mass murderer of americans just like LBJ.they murdered those 58,000 americans..


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dan Daly said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama signs an executive order that is so draconian and tyrannical that some of the people rise up and resort to armed resistance, demanding independence.
> 
> In your world, Obama is justified in killing them all and destroying their property because they are traitorous dogs...who dared to try leaving the beloved Union.
> 
> Do you fail to see how preposterous your position is?
> 
> *All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. -  Fascist Il Duce
> The Union of these States is perpetual. - Statist Abe*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a) Those last two quotes are absolutely NOT equivalent, and you know it, you dishonest POS.
> 
> b) Lincoln signed no such executive order (quite the contrary), so your analogy is childishly false.
> 
> c) Do not attempt to put words in my mouth, you dishonest POS. You are not qualified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still sticking to the "it's invalid because I say so" fallacy I see.  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, still responding with FACTS. I see you still have trouble with reading comprehension and are still trying to throw around words like "fallacy" that you clearly do not understand. Maybe someday when you learn to read well you can study a little logic. That way, you might - just might - have the slightest clue what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The biggest fallacy is that you think you have the faintest idea of what logic is.  You don't.  You're a moron.  Sorry, if you don't want to be considered a moron, don't be a moron.  I know it's hard, and the thought of me seeing you for the moron you are makes you whine and cry as you bluff and bluster.  All I can do is offer you a tissue to wipe your tears of helplessness.
Click to expand...

well said,gives standing ovation.


----------



## Unkotare

9/11 inside job said:


> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama signs an executive order that is so draconian and tyrannical that some of the people rise up and resort to armed resistance, demanding independence.
> 
> In your world, Obama is justified in killing them all and destroying their property because they are traitorous dogs...who dared to try leaving the beloved Union.
> 
> Do you fail to see how preposterous your position is?
> 
> *All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. -  Fascist Il Duce
> The Union of these States is perpetual. - Statist Abe*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a) Those last two quotes are absolutely NOT equivalent, and you know it, you dishonest POS.
> 
> b) Lincoln signed no such executive order (quite the contrary), so your analogy is childishly false.
> 
> c) Do not attempt to put words in my mouth, you dishonest POS. You are not qualified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still sticking to the "it's invalid because I say so" fallacy I see.  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, still responding with FACTS. I see you still have trouble with reading comprehension and are still trying to throw around words like "fallacy" that you clearly do not understand. Maybe someday when you learn to read well you can study a little logic. That way, you might - just might - have the slightest clue what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The biggest fallacy is that you think you have the faintest idea of what logic is.  You don't.  You're a moron.  Sorry, if you don't want to be considered a moron, don't be a moron.  I know it's hard, and the thought of me seeing you for the moron you are makes you whine and cry as you bluff and bluster.  All I can do is offer you a tissue to wipe your tears of helplessness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well said,gives standing ovation.
Click to expand...


Don't applaud too hard for the delusional fool, unless you are planning to slink away like he did.


----------



## hjmick

The next five Presidents are the ones I most admire because let's face it, after the way the last five have been treated, who the fuck would want the job?


----------



## gipper

hjmick said:


> The next five Presidents are the ones I most admire because let's face it, after the way the last five have been treated, who the fuck would want the job?



Liars, psychopaths, narcissists, statists, elitists...


----------



## Dan Daly

Unkotare said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Daly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> a) Those last two quotes are absolutely NOT equivalent, and you know it, you dishonest POS.
> 
> b) Lincoln signed no such executive order (quite the contrary), so your analogy is childishly false.
> 
> c) Do not attempt to put words in my mouth, you dishonest POS. You are not qualified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still sticking to the "it's invalid because I say so" fallacy I see.  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, still responding with FACTS. I see you still have trouble with reading comprehension and are still trying to throw around words like "fallacy" that you clearly do not understand. Maybe someday when you learn to read well you can study a little logic. That way, you might - just might - have the slightest clue what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The biggest fallacy is that you think you have the faintest idea of what logic is.  You don't.  You're a moron.  Sorry, if you don't want to be considered a moron, don't be a moron.  I know it's hard, and the thought of me seeing you for the moron you are makes you whine and cry as you bluff and bluster.  All I can do is offer you a tissue to wipe your tears of helplessness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well said,gives standing ovation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't applaud too hard for the delusional fool, unless you are planning to slink away like he did.
Click to expand...


Aww, do you miss getting taken to the woodshed like the 5yr old moron you act like?
Some of us have lives...which give us experience...which usually makes us smarter.  You should try it sometime, if you can stand moving out of your mom's basement.


----------

