Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

You didn't acknowledge you were also wrong on Lincoln's view of slavery. Read the Cooper Union speech. Or any of the 1860 R platform. Or any number of his other speeches. His view was obvious. It wasn't like he was hem-hawing about allowing slavery in the territories or calling a so-so institution.

Of course, viewed myopically threw the early Civil War one could point to one tree and sayhe would have agreed to terms with the Treasonists w/o abolishing slavery and that his view of the War was "union over all". And even THAT view changed as the war progressed. With the emancipation proclamation, that view died completely. But, regardless, his views on slavery itself -- the forest -- are not ambiguous or lukewarm. Razorfist analysis to the contrary.

As I said to the "Lincoln is shit" arguments -- knock yourself out. No one on the internet has ever been convinced in an argument, and certainly not when the gulf is that wide (there's zero point if your view is Lincoln was a tinpot dictator worse than Nixon). You could be right. I don't remotely think so and strongly disagree, but the process would certainly be an utter waste of time.

As for the War to Suppress Southern Treason, the United States, from that experience, grew into the World's greatest power. And there is zero doubt in my mind that it was transformative in that the country went from a union to country. It was the 2nd revolution and fundamentally altered the US to adapt itself to compete globally (the 3rd revolution was FDR and that wasn't so great--IMO). I'm not sure in what Harry Turtledove alternative universe fictional world the US looks like if they just split, but I'm dubious that it's a full-on "country" in time to meet the challenges of the 20th C. And in meeting those challenges the US became the global superpower. So, IMO, the war was, unquestionably, best for the United States.

And I don't care one way or the other if it was a "moral good" or not. Someone could argue that war is never a moral good. IMO, a world-leading US in the 20th C was definitely a moral good, but that makes me a colonialist, white supremacist, cultural appropriator and all that. But that much I believe and I believe, without hesitation, that the post-bellum transformation was necessary to get there.

That's all. I have nothing else to say on a topic spurred on by some YT jackwagon and, as AA noted, discussed probably thousands of times over the course of my message board experience on CNNSI and Worldcrossing.

As I said, if you want to piss on Lincoln, knock yourself out. And avoid the Lincoln Memorial if you're ever in DC.

[Hannibal]

And I don't care one way or the other if it was a "moral good" or not. Someone could argue that war is never a moral good.

You will not hear me make that argument, but I’m coming around to the realization that the majority of them in the world’s history haven’t been worth the suffering and misery.

That's all. I have nothing else to say on a topic spurred on by some YT jackwagon and, as AA noted, discussed probably thousands of times over the course of my message board experience on CNNSI and Worldcrossing.

I guess I'm late to the party.

that makes me a colonialist, white supremacist, cultural appropriator and all that.

I can think of much worse names to call you.

[iam416]

Team Val, along with Alabama"Alum" and Professor Tiger, were admanat that the War to Suppression Southern Treason was fought over "states rights" and that the results fundamentally changed the country and for the worse. They were wrong, right and wrong.

They didn't go as hard at Lincoln as you do, but they certainly hated his war. Probably still do.

[Mike]

I thought my meme about contradictions was pretty decent ... :::sniff:::

That was the best post from yesterday.

[iam416]

Time for you to step up, Mike. Set the topic!

[Hannibal]

Time for you to step up, Mike. Set the topic!

Project Veritas and Pfizer. Heh heh. That should make for a lively discussion.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I saw a video just this morning of O'Keefe ambushing some NYT reporter. It was embarrassing. Jimmy and his crew calling the dude names as he walks down his street eating a sandwich. The pressure of potentially getting charged is clearly rattling him. I heard Project Veritas laid off a bunch of people too right before Christmas. SAD!

[Hannibal]

The mainstream media does the same thing. Always have.

[AlabamAlum]

Team Val, along with Alabama"Alum" and Professor Tiger, were admanat that the War to Suppression Southern Treason was fought over "states rights" and that the results fundamentally changed the country and for the worse. They were wrong, right and wrong.

They didn't go as hard at Lincoln as you do, but they certainly hated his war. Probably still do.

First, you bastard. Second, you misspelled adamant. Third, no, I absolutely never said that. The primary reason for secession was the belief that Lincoln would end slavery (he wasn’t).

There were some other reasons, but none of the other reasons would have caused secession. The CSA couched their fears that Lincoln would end slavery (he wasn’t going to do that) as a “states rights” issue and that’s just deflective word play.

Lincoln did not like slavery and said so in his stumps. He didn’t care enough to do anything about it, though. He has a history of viewing slaves as approaching subhuman. After the South seceded, he basically told Davis, ‘I’m not going to lift a finger against you’ and said, ‘you can keep your slaves if you come back.’

So, he picked a fight with South Carolina and the war started. A couple of years later he signed a document that released absolutely none of the slaves in his power to release.

He was a moderate progressive man of his times who didn’t really like slavery and he sought to keep it from expanding, but his moral outrage never put him in an abolitionist camp.

1) The South should have never had slaves. (Thanks Jefferson!) The issue was 11 US Presidents did and they were fairly entrenched with the landed gentry of the time, from Washington to Grant and nearly every wealthy man of that era.

2) After the South seceded, war had to happen for the greater good. So, Lincoln picked a fight. He did what he absolutely had to do.

3) Lincoln was not some savior of the black people. He absolutely would have brokered a deal with Davis to keep slaves in chains if the southern states would rejoin the Union.

Now keep my name out of your fuckin’ mouth ((((Will Smith slap))))

[Dr. Strangelove]

GDP grew 2.9% in the 4th quarter. That's two consecutive quarters of healthy growth, which means by official definitions we are out of the recession from the first half of the year.

GDP Q4 2022: U.S. GDP rose 2.9% in the fourth quarter, more than expected even as recession fears loom (cnbc.com)

[AlabamAlum]

GDP grew 2.9% in the 4th quarter. That's two consecutive quarters of healthy growth, which means by official definitions we are out of the recession from the first half of the year.

GDP Q4 2022: U.S. GDP rose 2.9% in the fourth quarter, more than expected even as recession fears loom (cnbc.com)

Great news.

[iam416]

The mainstream media does the same thing. Always have.

Michael Moore built a career on it, much to the applause of the Left.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Oh my complaint isn't about the tactic. O'Keefe just seemed to use it for no reason other than to call the dude names and taunt him. It was extremely lame.

[iam416]

First, you bastard. Second, you misspelled adamant. Third, no, I absolutely never said that. The primary reason for secession was the belief that Lincoln would end slavery (he wasn’t).

There were some other reasons, but none of the other reasons would have caused secession. The CSA couched their fears that Lincoln would end slavery (he wasn’t going to do that) as a “states rights” issue and that’s just deflective word play.

Lincoln did not like slavery and said so in his stumps. He didn’t care enough to do anything about it, though. He has a history of viewing slaves as approaching subhuman. After the South seceded, he basically told Davis, ‘I’m not going to lift a finger against you’ and said, ‘you can keep your slaves if you come back.’

So, he picked a fight with South Carolina and the war started. A couple of years later he signed a document that released absolutely none of the slaves in his power to release.

He was a moderate progressive man of his times who didn’t really like slavery and he sought to keep it from expanding, but his moral outrage never put him in an abolitionist camp.

1) The South should have never had slaves. (Thanks Jefferson!) The issue was 11 US Presidents did and they were fairly entrenched with the landed gentry of the time, from Washington to Grant and nearly every wealthy man of that era.

2) After the South seceded, war had to happen for the greater good. So, Lincoln picked a fight. He did what he absolutely had to do.

3) Lincoln was not some savior of the black people. He absolutely would have brokered a deal with Davis to keep slaves in chains if the southern states would rejoin the Union.

Now keep my name out of your fuckin’ mouth ((((Will Smith slap))))

He was morally opposed to slavery was the point. That he thought union > abolition is fine and doesn't change the point. Once he issued the EP, there was no turning back and the emancipation everywhere was foregone -- well, assuming the United States won. And while there's no dispute as to what Lincoln "would have done" earlier in the War, after the EP and certainly when the outcome was foregone, he very much turned into the savior. Whether that was a complicated path or not -- and it was -- it happened.

And all of that is well and good, but for you to ignore a Harry Turtledove reference is beyond spiteful. I guess that's what I should expect from a Team Val-Prof Tiger lackey.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Anyways, good economic data all around. That should be your topic of the day. With a tip of the cap to Faithful Joe, the economy's tireless steward.