Poll of the Day > Do you like this person: Abraham Lincoln

Topic List	Page List: 1
TheOrangeMisfit 07/10/17 5:19:17 PM #1:	do you? Yes No Indifferent View Results I don't think his legacy is as selfless and heroic as we're led to believe, but his decisions and impact are ultimately admirable. Plus he killed vampires which is a plus. George Washington: 82.1% The Rock: 80.7% Will Smith: 69.5% Michael Jordan: 67.4% Bernie Sanders: 66.7% Michael Jackson: 62.5% Gabe Newell: 56.6% Barack Obama: 54% Adam Sandler: 52.5% Katy Perry: 38.5% Bill Nye: 39.1% Donald J. Trump: 32.3% Hillary Clinton: 22.8% --- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8Ik55J7RKO_d9U_9RIrYUQ <cite>TheOrangeMisfit posted [p:882673333] in Do you lik... [t:75551168]...</cite> <quote> do you? Yes No Indifferent View Results I don't think his legacy is as selfless and heroic as we're led to believe, but his decisions and impact are ultimately admirable. Plus he killed vampires which is a plus. George Washington: 82.1% The Rock: 80.7% Will Smith: 69.5% Michael Jordan: 67.4% Bernie Sanders: 66.7% Michael Jackson: 62.5% Gabe Newell: 56.6% Barack Obama: 54% Adam Sandler: 52.5% Katy Perry: 38.5% Bill Nye: 39.1% Donald J. Trump: 32.3% Hillary Clinton: 22.8%</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive 07/10/17 6:09:58 PM #2:	TheOrangeMisfit posted... but his decisions and impact are ultimately admirable Some would argue that the massive bloated growth and unchecked power-grabs of the Federal government that followed aren't all that admirable. Others might argue that the militarized solution to slavery in the US is a large part of what helped spur the next 100 years or so of civil rights violations and rampant intolerance in the South. Regardless of the morality or rationality of his intentions, the <impact and long-term consequences of those decisions aren't necessarily as rosy as some people might like to believe. (And that's not even getting into things like the stereotypical "backwardness" of the modern South being almost entirely the result of the Civil War and events that occurred afterward, because it's harder to blame him for things that happened after he was dead. But he definitely opened the door to help them take place, intentionally or no.) --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:882676100] in Do you lik... [t:75551168]...</cite> <quote><cite>TheOrangeMisfit posted...</cite> <quote>but his decisions and impact are ultimately admirable</quote> Some would argue that the massive bloated growth and unchecked power-grabs of the Federal government that followed aren't all that admirable. Others might argue that the militarized solution to slavery in the US is a large part of what helped spur the next 100 years or so of civil rights violations and rampant intolerance in the South. Regardless of the morality or rationality of his intentions, the <impact and long-term consequences of those decisions aren't necessarily as rosy as some people might like to believe. (And that's not even getting into things like the stereotypical "backwardness" of the modern South being almost entirely the result of the Civil War and events that occurred afterward, because it's harder to blame him for things that happened after he was dead. But he definitely opened the door to help them take place, intentionally or no.) </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JixHedgehog 07/10/17 6:15:18 PM #3:	Yep! Glad someone prematurely put a stop on vampires --- Not changing my sig until Nintendo announces the Switch XL 1/12/2017 <cite>JixHedgehog posted [p:882676403] in Do you lik... [t:75551168]...</cite> <quote>Yep! Glad someone prematurely put a stop on vampires</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheCyborgNinja 07/10/17 6:20:27 PM #4:	If he'd let the South leave, both places would have done better in the long run. Slavery was doomed anyway, all he did was force two different cultures to suck it up and stay tied at the hip to forever fight. --- "message parlor" ? do you mean the post office ? - SlayerX888 <cite>TheCyborgNinja posted [p:882676672] in Do you lik... [t:75551168]...</cite> <quote>If he'd let the South leave, both places would have done better in the long run. Slavery was doomed anyway, all he did was force two different cultures to suck it up and stay tied at the hip to forever fight.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
streamofthesky 07/10/17 6:24:51 PM #5:	ParanoidObsessive posted... Others might argue that the militarized solution to slavery in the US is a large part of what helped spur the next 100 years or so of civil rights violations and rampant intolerance in the South. Yeah, the South was known at the time for their tolerance and progressive views towards black people. If only that mean ol' Uncle Abe hadn't strong armed them into ending slavery, I'm sure they would've gotten around to it soon enough, and then immediately harbor feelings of nothing but sunshine and rainbows towards the now-free black people who were uneducated and unprepared to fend for themselves...for reasons we'll never know. <cite>streamofthesky posted [p:882676923] in Do you lik... [t:75551168]...</cite> <quote><cite>ParanoidObsessive posted...</cite> <quote>Others might argue that the militarized solution to slavery in the US is a large part of what helped spur the next 100 years or so of civil rights violations and rampant intolerance in the South.</quote> Yeah, the South was known at the time for their tolerance and progressive views towards black people. If only that mean ol' Uncle Abe hadn't strong armed them into ending slavery, I'm sure they would've gotten around to it soon enough, and then immediately harbor feelings of nothing but sunshine and rainbows towards the now-free black people who were uneducated and unprepared to fend for themselves...for reasons we'll never know.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tardis2015 07/10/17 7:41:09 PM #6:	yes, he was a good president. --- 3DS FC: 2981-5558-6231 2nd FC: 0662-6831-0077 <cite>Tardis2015 posted [p:882681132] in Do you lik... [t:75551168]...</cite> <quote>yes, he was a good president.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MICHALCOLE 07/10/17 7:45:54 PM #7:	Met him once at a club.. he was kind of a dick <cite>MICHALCOLE posted [p:882681395] in Do you lik... [t:75551168]...</cite> <quote>Met him once at a club.. he was kind of a dick</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive 07/10/17 8:34:10 PM #8:	streamofthesky posted... Yeah, the South was known at the time for their tolerance and progressive views towards black people. If only that mean ol' Uncle Abe hadn't strong armed them into ending slavery, I'm sure they would've gotten around to it soon enough, and then immediately harbor feelings of nothing but sunshine and rainbows towards the now-free black people who were uneducated and unprepared to fend for themselves...for reasons we'll never know. Childish attempts at sarcasm aside, you may not be too far off-base. In most other nations that had slavery, the slow shifting of technology and economic conditions rendered slavery an economic liability, and it was phased out in far less disruptive and contentious ways. And what we already know of US history implies the economic and technological conditions in the US likely would have shifted to render slavery as a major institution a waste of money in the South within a few decades (why pay to house and maintain a group of workers when you can industrialize and have machines harvest, sort, and process material at a fraction of the cost?). Meanwhile, the Civil War destroyed massive chunks of infrastructure, cost a shitton of lives, and helped generate an active hatred for blacks that wasn't really a thing prior to the war. Resentment that straight-up helped fuel the rise of the KKK and the constant civil rights abuses and mistreatment of blacks that took at least another 100 years to even START being addressed in any meaningful way. So the question that's essentially being asked is, was the Civil War the best possible solution to the problem? Or could political and economic forces have led to a much more subdued transition in the absence of military action? Granted, this isn't 100% assured, and even if it WAS it still means at least one or two more generations of people living under slavery. It also opens the door to the possibility that most former slaves would just transition to an effectively marginalized working class (in much the same way the North treated Irish and other immigrants in their industrial factories, or the Chinese who helped build the railroads in the West). And there's no real guarantee that how things eventually worked in the North or in countries like Britain or France (or even Canada - look it up!) would have worked similarly in the American South. BUT. A world with no Civil War means a South that retains most of its pre-War wealth (which was mostly greater than the North) and infrastructure, and where the North wouldn't feel the need to put its boot on their neck for decades (which still has repercussions to this day). Before the war, the South was generally known as some of the most well-educated and cultured areas in the US - after, it became the butt of a joke that's still relevant. Every single time someone today complains about how Southerners are ignorant or inbred or whathaveyou, do not forget that it is ABSOLUTELY the fault of the North in many ways, both direct and indirect. A broken, ignorant, poor South is exactly what the North wanted post-War (and what it actively attempted to create). Lincoln himself didn't want that, but then again Lincoln went and got himself shot and the job fell to other people, so he doesn't get a say. (cont) --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:882684092] in Do you lik... [t:75551168]...</cite> <quote><cite>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote>Yeah, the South was known at the time for their tolerance and progressive views towards black people. If only that mean ol' Uncle Abe hadn't strong armed them into ending slavery, I'm sure they would've gotten around to it soon enough, and then immediately harbor feelings of nothing but sunshine and rainbows towards the now-free black people who were uneducated and unprepared to fend for themselves...for reasons we'll never know.</quote> Childish attempts at sarcasm aside, you may not be too far off-base. In most other nations that had slavery, the slow shifting of technology and economic conditions rendered slavery an economic liability, and it was phased out in far less disruptive and contentious ways. And what we already know of US history implies the economic and technological conditions in the US likely would have shifted to render slavery as a major institution a waste of money in the South within a few decades (why pay to house and maintain a group of workers when you can industrialize and have machines harvest, sort, and process material at a fraction of the cost?). Meanwhile, the Civil War destroyed massive chunks of infrastructure, cost a shitton of lives, and helped generate an active hatred for blacks that wasn't really a thing prior to the war. Resentment that straight-up helped fuel the rise of the KKK and the constant civil rights abuses and mistreatment of blacks that took at least another 100 years to even START being addressed in any meaningful way. So the question that's essentially being asked is, was the Civil War the best possible solution to the problem? Or could political and economic forces have led to a much more subdued transition in the absence of military action? Granted, this isn't 100% assured, and even if it WAS it still means at least one or two more generations of people living under slavery. It also opens the door to the possibility that most former slaves would just transition to an effectively marginalized working class (in much the same way the North treated Irish and other immigrants in their industrial factories, or the Chinese who helped build the railroads in the West). And there's no real guarantee that how things eventually worked in the North or in countries like Britain or France (or even Canada - look it up!) would have worked similarly in the American South. BUT. A world with no Civil War means a South that retains most of its pre-War wealth (which was mostly greater than the North) and infrastructure, and where the North wouldn't feel the need to put its boot on their neck for decades (which still has repercussions to this day). Before the war, the South was generally known as some of the most well-educated and cultured areas in the US - after, it became the butt of a joke that's still relevant. Every single time someone today complains about how Southerners are ignorant or inbred or whathaveyou, do not forget that it is ABSOLUTELY the fault of the North in many ways, both direct and indirect. A broken, ignorant, poor South is exactly what the North wanted post-War (and what it actively attempted to create). Lincoln himself didn't want that, but then again Lincoln went and got himself shot and the job fell to other people, so he doesn't get a say. (cont) </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive 07/10/17 8:34:24 PM #9:	A South that phased slavery out on its own terms would have had far less hostility and resentment for their own slave class, and thus might have been more inclined to better treatment. There would have been less reason to constantly reinforce the narrative that blacks were biologically inferior (thus justifying a desire to prevent them from voting or receiving education to "prove" their ignorance). They also would have had a much stronger economy capable of absorbing new citizens at a higher level than "borderline-subsistence", and potentially even more motivation to actually help former slaves develop the skills necessary to actually survive in a world where they now had freedom (which included the freedom to starve to death and be homeless). Racism wasn't even remotely unique to the South, nor was it necessarily even more "institutionalized" there than anywhere else (regardless what is implied in most American history classes in school, Northerners weren't one iota less racist than Southerners - they just expressed that racism in different ways. And many of them were easily far more racist than Southerners were, because they had the luxury of seeing blacks as more of an exotic and unwanted beast rather than as someone you have to interact with on a regular basis). Thus, there's no reason why the shifting economic and socio-cultural conditions that led to slavery dying off in the North (and later, to Northerners actually starting to treat Irish - and later Italian - immigrants as actual human beings) couldn't have applied to the South as well, once conditions shifted to make the institution of slavery less viable. (Or, conversely, maybe most former slaves would have just wound up getting deported to Liberia. There are lots of possibilities, even if the majority of Americans are completely ignorant of most of the actual historical details these days.) It's entirely possible that the South would never have reformed without military intervention. It's also entirely possible that, even if slavery had somehow been removed from the equation entirely, something like the Civil War still would have occurred eventually as the growing culture clash between North and South and the divide between federal power and states' rights kept growing. It's possible that the Civil War really was the best case scenario. It's also possible that it wasn't. But that's the real problem. There exists grounds for doubt, and the possibility that either alternative might have been better. Which makes the popular portrayal of Lincoln as a glorious champion of truth and justice and the war itself as a battle of morality against evil deceptive as hell. And at a time when the country is divided as fuck and neither side seems willing to listen to the other and is utterly convinced of the righteousness of their own point-of-view, just writing the Civil War off in such simplistic terms is kind of dangerous. One of the reasons why the Civil War happened in the first place was because neither side really wanted to listen to or consider anything the other side had to say at all, and were perfectly willing to shit on everyone else as long as their own viewpoint won. Two radically different regions with two radically different economies and lifestyles/cultures basically wanted to preserve their own way of life and impose their outlook on the other side. And if that meant breaking a few laws or beating the shit out of someone, so be it. After all, we've got RIGHT on our side! But the moralistic viewpoint of history is almost always bullshit (just like the metaphorical idea of "PROGRESS!" or ethnocentrically projecting your morality backwards or sideways onto other cultures), and it leads to a lot of problems. And those who don't learn from history yada yada yada etc etc. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:882684105] in Do you lik... [t:75551168]...</cite> <quote>A South that phased slavery out on its own terms would have had far less hostility and resentment for their own slave class, and thus might have been more inclined to better treatment. There would have been less reason to constantly reinforce the narrative that blacks were biologically inferior (thus justifying a desire to prevent them from voting or receiving education to "prove" their ignorance). They also would have had a much stronger economy capable of absorbing new citizens at a higher level than "borderline-subsistence", and potentially even more motivation to actually help former slaves develop the skills necessary to actually survive in a world where they now had freedom (which included the freedom to starve to death and be homeless). Racism wasn't even remotely unique to the South, nor was it necessarily even more "institutionalized" there than anywhere else (regardless what is implied in most American history classes in school, Northerners weren't one iota less racist than Southerners - they just expressed that racism in different ways. And many of them were easily far more racist than Southerners were, because they had the luxury of seeing blacks as more of an exotic and unwanted beast rather than as someone you have to interact with on a regular basis). Thus, there's no reason why the shifting economic and socio-cultural conditions that led to slavery dying off in the North (and later, to Northerners actually starting to treat Irish - and later Italian - immigrants as actual human beings) couldn't have applied to the South as well, once conditions shifted to make the institution of slavery less viable. (Or, conversely, maybe most former slaves would have just wound up getting deported to Liberia. There are lots of possibilities, even if the majority of Americans are completely ignorant of most of the actual historical details these days.) It's entirely possible that the South would never have reformed without military intervention. It's also entirely possible that, even if slavery had somehow been removed from the equation entirely, something like the Civil War still would have occurred eventually as the growing culture clash between North and South and the divide between federal power and states' rights kept growing. It's possible that the Civil War really was the best case scenario. It's also possible that it wasn't. But that's the real problem. There exists grounds for doubt, and the possibility that either alternative might have been better. Which makes the popular portrayal of Lincoln as a glorious champion of truth and justice and the war itself as a battle of morality against evil deceptive as hell. And at a time when the country is divided as fuck and neither side seems willing to listen to the other and is utterly convinced of the righteousness of their own point-of-view, just writing the Civil War off in such simplistic terms is kind of dangerous. One of the reasons why the Civil War happened in the first place was because neither side really wanted to listen to or consider anything the other side had to say at all, and were perfectly willing to shit on everyone else as long as their own viewpoint won. Two radically different regions with two radically different economies and lifestyles/cultures basically wanted to preserve their own way of life and impose their outlook on the other side. And if that meant breaking a few laws or beating the shit out of someone, so be it. After all, we've got RIGHT on our side! But the moralistic viewpoint of history is almost always bullshit (just like the metaphorical idea of "PROGRESS!" or ethnocentrically projecting your morality backwards or sideways onto other cultures), and it leads to a lot of problems. And those who don't learn from history yada yada yada etc etc. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive 07/10/17 8:35:34 PM #10:	And keep in mind, I'm not even saying that any of that is OBJECTIVELY TRUE. Only that these are the sorts of things you need to keep in mind when you're idolizing a political figure from the past and hoisting them up on a pedestal when their feet might be a bit more clay than you realize. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:882684179] in Do you lik... [t:75551168]...</cite> <quote>And keep in mind, I'm not even saying that any of that is OBJECTIVELY TRUE. Only that these are the sorts of things you need to keep in mind when you're idolizing a political figure from the past and hoisting them up on a pedestal when their feet might be a bit more clay than you realize. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MICHALCOLE 07/10/17 8:36:28 PM #11:	ParanoidObsessive posted... And keep in mind, I'm not even saying that any of that is OBJECTIVELY TRUE. Only that these are the sorts of things you need to keep in mind when you're idolizing a political figure from the past and hoisting them up on a pedestal when their feet might be a bit more clay than you realize. Your entire post could have been summed up by saying "hindsight is 20/20" <cite>MICHALCOLE posted [p:882684245] in Do you lik... [t:75551168]...</cite> <quote><cite>ParanoidObsessive posted...</cite> <quote>And keep in mind, I'm not even saying that any of that is OBJECTIVELY TRUE. Only that these are the sorts of things you need to keep in mind when you're idolizing a political figure from the past and hoisting them up on a pedestal when their feet might be a bit more clay than you realize. </quote> Your entire post could have been summed up by saying "hindsight is 20/20"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
streamofthesky 07/10/17 8:44:45 PM #12:	MICHALCOLE posted... ParanoidObsessive posted... And keep in mind, I'm not even saying that any of that is OBJECTIVELY TRUE. Only that these are the sorts of things you need to keep in mind when you're idolizing a political figure from the past and hoisting them up on a pedestal when their feet might be a bit more clay than you realize. Your entire post could have been summed up by saying "hindsight is 20/20" And is moot because Lincoln didn't choose to go to war for the sake of ending slavery. Despite the childish sarcasm of "The War of Northern Aggression," it was the South that saw the results of a democratic election and decided "screw that", it was the South that chose to secede, it was the South that attacked first. So I REALLY don't know why PO felt the need to write a thesis on Lincoln's "decision" to "start" a war. <cite>streamofthesky posted [p:882684759] in Do you lik... [t:75551168]...</cite> <quote><cite>MICHALCOLE posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ParanoidObsessive posted...</cite> <quote>And keep in mind, I'm not even saying that any of that is OBJECTIVELY TRUE. Only that these are the sorts of things you need to keep in mind when you're idolizing a political figure from the past and hoisting them up on a pedestal when their feet might be a bit more clay than you realize. </quote> Your entire post could have been summed up by saying "hindsight is 20/20"</quote> And is moot because Lincoln didn't choose to go to war for the sake of ending slavery. Despite the childish sarcasm of "The War of Northern Aggression," it was the South that saw the results of a democratic election and decided "screw that", it was the South that chose to secede, it was the South that attacked first. So I REALLY don't know why PO felt the need to write a thesis on Lincoln's "decision" to "start" a war.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive 07/10/17 8:49:39 PM #13:	MICHALCOLE posted... Your entire post could have been summed up by saying "hindsight is 20/20" Except that wouldn't actually have conveyed the point at all, and would have led stupid people to misinterpret what I was saying, as stupid people often do. Like I've pointed out in the past, the main reason I started posting massive posts online in the first place is because when I used to post succinct, short, pithy replies to things, there were always people completely misinterpreting or deliberately misrepresenting what I was saying. So I developed the habit of over-explaining everything so people would get the fucking point. Or they'd just snidely post how they couldn't be bothered reading more than a paragraph, in which case I could just happily dismiss anything and everything they had to say after that point anyway, because they clearly weren't responsible enough to be allowed to have opinions anyway. Either works. If you don't like my walls of text, you have only yourselves to blame. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:882685050] in Do you lik... [t:75551168]...</cite> <quote><cite>MICHALCOLE posted...</cite> <quote>Your entire post could have been summed up by saying "hindsight is 20/20"</quote> Except that wouldn't actually have conveyed the point at all, and would have led stupid people to misinterpret what I was saying, as stupid people often do. Like I've pointed out in the past, the main reason I started posting massive posts online in the first place is because when I used to post succinct, short, pithy replies to things, there were always people completely misinterpreting or deliberately misrepresenting what I was saying. So I developed the habit of over-explaining everything so people would get the fucking point. Or they'd just snidely post how they couldn't be bothered reading more than a paragraph, in which case I could just happily dismiss anything and everything they had to say after that point anyway, because they clearly weren't responsible enough to be allowed to have opinions anyway. Either works. If you don't like my walls of text, you have only yourselves to blame. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MICHALCOLE 07/10/17 9:00:26 PM #14:	ParanoidObsessive posted... MICHALCOLE posted... Your entire post could have been summed up by saying "hindsight is 20/20" Except that wouldn't actually have conveyed the point at all, and would have led stupid people to misinterpret what I was saying, as stupid people often do. Like I've pointed out in the past, the main reason I started posting massive posts online in the first place is because when I used to post succinct, short, pithy replies to things, there were always people completely misinterpreting or deliberately misrepresenting what I was saying. So I developed the habit of over-explaining everything so people would get the fucking point. Or they'd just snidely post how they couldn't be bothered reading more than a paragraph, in which case I could just happily dismiss anything and everything they had to say after that point anyway, because they clearly weren't responsible enough to be allowed to have opinions anyway. Either works. If you don't like my walls of text, you have only yourselves to blame. Tldr <cite>MICHALCOLE posted [p:882685725] in Do you lik... [t:75551168]...</cite> <quote><cite>ParanoidObsessive posted...</cite> <quote><cite>MICHALCOLE posted...</cite> <quote>Your entire post could have been summed up by saying "hindsight is 20/20"</quote> Except that wouldn't actually have conveyed the point at all, and would have led stupid people to misinterpret what I was saying, as stupid people often do. Like I've pointed out in the past, the main reason I started posting massive posts online in the first place is because when I used to post succinct, short, pithy replies to things, there were always people completely misinterpreting or deliberately misrepresenting what I was saying. So I developed the habit of over-explaining everything so people would get the fucking point. Or they'd just snidely post how they couldn't be bothered reading more than a paragraph, in which case I could just happily dismiss anything and everything they had to say after that point anyway, because they clearly weren't responsible enough to be allowed to have opinions anyway. Either works. If you don't like my walls of text, you have only yourselves to blame. </quote> Tldr</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ReggieTheReckless 07/10/17 9:07:22 PM #15:	if he was a president, he would be babe-raham lincoln --- http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/Kiyala/GM.gif http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/Kiyala/SB.gif http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/Kiyala/Rt.jpg <cite>ReggieTheReckless posted [p:882686118] in Do you lik... [t:75551168]...</cite> <quote>if he was a president, he would be babe-raham lincoln</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive 07/10/17 9:10:09 PM #16:	streamofthesky posted... And is moot because Lincoln didn't choose to go to war for the sake of ending slavery. Directly? No. But his views on the point definitely helped tipped the balance, and he absolutely knew it was going to be a factor when he ran in the first place. And he's still the one who helped shape the perception of why the war was being fought by recasting the motivation (mainly to discourage British and French support for the South). And realistically, despite most of his protestations of "I'll do anything to preserve the Union, even accept slavery", he likely would have pushed for legislation that the South would have objected to, and expectations of same absolutely played a role in why they seceded. But I also acknowledged that the undercurrents of the war might have been unavoidable no matter who the President was, which is why I said "It's also entirely possible that, even if slavery had somehow been removed from the equation entirely, something like the Civil War still would have occurred eventually as the growing culture clash between North and South and the divide between federal power and states' rights kept growing." Because there WAS more to things than slavery. Hell, a major part of it was the perception (which, again, we are absolutely facing today) that people in one region are using their disproportional population density to force their views on people who live in larger regions but with less population, meaning laws get passed that don't actually support the people forced to abide by them, and which they effectively had little say in. And that wasn't going to change no matter who won the election. streamofthesky posted... So I REALLY don't know why PO felt the need to write a thesis on Lincoln's "decision" to "start" a war. Because I didn't say that at all? I merely suggested that the Civil War as a whole - WHICH INCLUDES HOW IT PLAYED OUT AND THE POLITICAL TONE LINCOLN ABSOLUTELY SHIFTED IT INTO - might have been a negative in civil rights terms, because as things played out it may have done more harm than good. The rest of the dissertation was mostly in response to your own childishly mocking post where you basically dismissed out-of-hand that the Civil War was anything less than a magical rainbow farted out of a unicorns' ass while it was being ridden by Lincoln as he rode off into the sunset. To which I merely pointed out why, maybe, just maybe, Southerners weren't all racist caricatures or comic-book villains who were ultimately defeated by Captain Tophat. I never said the issue was whether or not Lincoln "started" the war, or why - though if you want to go down that road, we could easily add "pushed for a war to preserve a Union which didn't necessarily benefit from being preserved, against the wishes of many of his own constituents, and with a willingness to sacrifice soldiers who had absolutely no desire to fight what they saw as "someone else's war" (read up on the draft riots in NYC) to do so". And at no point did I say that I absolutely support or agree with any of those points-of-view. Only that there are absolutely people who might, and that if they do, their viewpoint isn't necessarily entirely invalid. Lincoln was a man in a murky situation who did what he thought best, whose actions had potent impact both positive and negative, and who lost the chance to continue steering the ship afterward. And some of the decisions he did make may absolutely have been the wrong ones. Painting him as an entirely noble champion of the historical imperative is a flawed point-of-view. And painting the Civil War as the best possible outcome because it's the only one we know is worse. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:882686254] in Do you lik... [t:75551168]...</cite> <quote><cite>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote>And is moot because Lincoln didn't choose to go to war for the sake of ending slavery.</quote> Directly? No. But his views on the point definitely helped tipped the balance, and he absolutely knew it was going to be a factor when he ran in the first place. And he's still the one who helped shape the perception of why the war was being fought by recasting the motivation (mainly to discourage British and French support for the South). And realistically, despite most of his protestations of "I'll do anything to preserve the Union, even accept slavery", he likely would have pushed for legislation that the South would have objected to, and expectations of same absolutely played a role in why they seceded. But I also acknowledged that the undercurrents of the war might have been unavoidable no matter who the President was, which is why I said "It's also entirely possible that, even if slavery had somehow been removed from the equation entirely, something like the Civil War still would have occurred eventually as the growing culture clash between North and South and the divide between federal power and states' rights kept growing." Because there WAS more to things than slavery. Hell, a major part of it was the perception (which, again, we are absolutely facing today) that people in one region are using their disproportional population density to force their views on people who live in larger regions but with less population, meaning laws get passed that don't actually support the people forced to abide by them, and which they effectively had little say in. And that wasn't going to change no matter who won the election. <cite>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote>So I REALLY don't know why PO felt the need to write a thesis on Lincoln's "decision" to "start" a war.</quote> Because I didn't say that at all? I merely suggested that the Civil War as a whole - WHICH INCLUDES HOW IT PLAYED OUT AND THE POLITICAL TONE LINCOLN ABSOLUTELY SHIFTED IT INTO - might have been a negative in civil rights terms, because as things played out it may have done more harm than good. The rest of the dissertation was mostly in response to your own childishly mocking post where you basically dismissed out-of-hand that the Civil War was anything less than a magical rainbow farted out of a unicorns' ass while it was being ridden by Lincoln as he rode off into the sunset. To which I merely pointed out why, maybe, just maybe, Southerners weren't all racist caricatures or comic-book villains who were ultimately defeated by Captain Tophat. I never said the issue was whether or not Lincoln "started" the war, or why - though if you want to go down that road, we could easily add "pushed for a war to preserve a Union which didn't necessarily benefit from being preserved, against the wishes of many of his own constituents, and with a willingness to sacrifice soldiers who had absolutely no desire to fight what they saw as "someone else's war" (read up on the draft riots in NYC) to do so". And at no point did I say that I absolutely support or agree with any of those points-of-view. Only that there are absolutely people who might, and that if they do, their viewpoint isn't necessarily entirely invalid. Lincoln was a man in a murky situation who did what he thought best, whose actions had potent impact both positive and negative, and who lost the chance to continue steering the ship afterward. And some of the decisions he did make may absolutely have been the wrong ones. Painting him as an entirely noble champion of the historical imperative is a flawed point-of-view. And painting the Civil War as the best possible outcome because it's the only one we know is worse. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive 07/10/17 9:12:01 PM #17:	MICHALCOLE posted... Tldr Expected. And this is the point where I planned to accuse you of being a terrible play-by-play announcer, so assume I'm doing that now. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:882686355] in Do you lik... [t:75551168]...</cite> <quote><cite>MICHALCOLE posted...</cite> <quote>Tldr</quote> Expected. And this is the point where I planned to accuse you of being a terrible play-by-play announcer, so assume I'm doing that now. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ReggieTheReckless 07/10/17 9:15:05 PM #18:	You're like that uncle that just keeps talking at the family party and people just say "uh-huh" and nod their heads --- http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/Kiyala/GM.gif http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/Kiyala/SB.gif http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/Kiyala/Rt.jpg <cite>ReggieTheReckless posted [p:882686530] in Do you lik... [t:75551168]...</cite> <quote>You're like that uncle that just keeps talking at the family party and people just say "uh-huh" and nod their heads</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MICHALCOLE 07/10/17 9:21:12 PM #19:	ParanoidObsessive posted... MICHALCOLE posted... Tldr Expected. And this is the point where I planned to accuse you of being a terrible play-by-play announcer, so assume I'm doing that now. You are accusing me of actually being him? Yeah well you're a parranoid obsessive in real life <cite>MICHALCOLE posted [p:882686882] in Do you lik... [t:75551168]...</cite> <quote><cite>ParanoidObsessive posted...</cite> <quote><cite>MICHALCOLE posted...</cite> <quote>Tldr</quote> Expected. And this is the point where I planned to accuse you of being a terrible play-by-play announcer, so assume I'm doing that now. </quote> You are accusing me of actually being him? Yeah well you're a parranoid obsessive in real life</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive 07/10/17 9:22:06 PM #20:	ReggieTheReckless posted... You're like that uncle that just keeps talking at the family party and people just say "uh-huh" and nod their heads At least I'm not that uncle who used to touch you inappropriately in a dark room when no one else was looking back when you were 12. ~~Or AM I?~~ --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:882686933] in Do you lik... [t:75551168]...</cite> <quote><cite>ReggieTheReckless posted...</cite> <quote>You're like that uncle that just keeps talking at the family party and people just say "uh-huh" and nod their heads</quote> At least I'm not that uncle who used to touch you inappropriately in a dark room when no one else was looking back when you were 12. Or AM I? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive 07/10/17 9:23:16 PM #21:	MICHALCOLE posted... You are accusing me of actually being him? Yeah well you're a parranoid obsessive in real life Man, and some people here say -I'M- the one with no sense of humor. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:882687005] in Do you lik... [t:75551168]...</cite> <quote><cite>MICHALCOLE posted...</cite> <quote>You are accusing me of actually being him? Yeah well you're a parranoid obsessive in real life</quote> Man, and some people here say -I'M- the one with no sense of humor. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MICHALCOLE 07/10/17 9:26:07 PM #22:	ParanoidObsessive posted... MICHALCOLE posted... You are accusing me of actually being him? Yeah well you're a parranoid obsessive in real life Man, and some people here say -I'M- the one with no sense of humor. I didn't even spell paranoid right.. what is wrong with me? <cite>MICHALCOLE posted [p:882687208] in Do you lik... [t:75551168]...</cite> <quote><cite>ParanoidObsessive posted...</cite> <quote><cite>MICHALCOLE posted...</cite> <quote>You are accusing me of actually being him? Yeah well you're a parranoid obsessive in real life</quote> Man, and some people here say -I'M- the one with no sense of humor. </quote> I didn't even spell paranoid right.. what is wrong with me?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
streamofthesky 07/10/17 9:34:28 PM #23:	ReggieTheReckless posted... You're like that uncle that just keeps talking at the family party and people just say "uh-huh" and nod their heads Worse, he's the guy who knows he's wrong so he tries to ramble on as much as possible to mask that fact and get the other person to just give up arguing. ParanoidObsessive posted... Directly? No. But his views on the point definitely helped tipped the balance, and he absolutely knew it was going to be a factor when he ran in the first place. Literally blaming Lincoln (at least in part) for causing a war for having the nerve to exercise his right to run for political office. How dare he! Doesn't he know the southern states would throw a hissy fit if he won a legally held democratic election?! ParanoidObsessive posted... And realistically, despite most of his protestations of "I'll do anything to preserve the Union, even accept slavery", he likely would have pushed for legislation that the South would have objected to, and expectations of same absolutely played a role in why they seceded. That's called a Representative Democracy. You're literally complaining that if a majority of the country wants a law passed/changed and elect the people to do it, that it's somehow wrong. ParanoidObsessive posted... Hell, a major part of it was the perception (which, again, we are absolutely facing today) that people in one region are using their disproportional population density to force their views on people who live in larger regions but with less population, meaning laws get passed that don't actually support the people forced to abide by them, and which they effectively had little say in. And that wasn't going to change no matter who won the election. First of all, what we're facing today is the problem that a MINORITY of the country is dictating laws to the MAJORITY due to Gerrymandering of votes and lobbying of our Congressional leaders. Second of all, no. You're wrong. Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself now. Electing a majority to Congress and getting the laws you want passed/changed is exactly how our country is supposed to work. If said laws are unconstitutional or unjust, we have checks and balances (executive veto; challenging in the courts) to overturn said laws. The South saw they had lost on the issue of slavery, or were on the verge of it, and decided they didn't want to play by the rules of the republic now that it didn't suit them. <cite>streamofthesky posted [p:882687732] in Do you lik... [t:75551168]...</cite> <quote><cite>ReggieTheReckless posted...</cite> <quote>You're like that uncle that just keeps talking at the family party and people just say "uh-huh" and nod their heads</quote> Worse, he's the guy who knows he's wrong so he tries to ramble on as much as possible to mask that fact and get the other person to just give up arguing. <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted...</cite> <quote>Directly? No. But his views on the point definitely helped tipped the balance, and he absolutely knew it was going to be a factor when he ran in the first place.</quote> Literally blaming Lincoln (at least in part) for causing a war for having the nerve to exercise his right to run for political office. How dare he! Doesn't he know the southern states would throw a hissy fit if he won a legally held democratic election?! <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted...</cite> <quote>And realistically, despite most of his protestations of "I'll do anything to preserve the Union, even accept slavery", he likely would have pushed for legislation that the South would have objected to, and expectations of same absolutely played a role in why they seceded.</quote> That's called a Representative Democracy. You're literally complaining that if a majority of the country wants a law passed/changed and elect the people to do it, that it's somehow wrong. <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted...</cite> <quote>Hell, a major part of it was the perception (which, again, we are absolutely facing today) that people in one region are using their disproportional population density to force their views on people who live in larger regions but with less population, meaning laws get passed that don't actually support the people forced to abide by them, and which they effectively had little say in. And that wasn't going to change no matter who won the election.</quote> First of all, what we're facing today is the problem that a MINORITY of the country is dictating laws to the MAJORITY due to Gerrymandering of votes and lobbying of our Congressional leaders. Second of all, no. You're wrong. Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself now. Electing a majority to Congress and getting the laws you want passed/changed is exactly how our country is supposed to work. If said laws are unconstitutional or unjust, we have checks and balances (executive veto; challenging in the courts) to overturn said laws. The South saw they had lost on the issue of slavery, or were on the verge of it, and decided they didn't want to play by the rules of the republic now that it didn't suit them.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SpeeDLeemon 07/10/17 9:35:04 PM #24:	Never met the guy <cite>SpeeDLeemon posted [p:882687779] in Do you lik... [t:75551168]...</cite> <quote>Never met the guy</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheOrangeMisfit 07/11/17 4:48:36 PM #25:	He's definitely better than Gaybraham Lincoln https://i.redditmedia.com/uQWmVqo2jw3FqE6_V91MXvuURtL5_H_GxhfqlPsKzuk.jpg?w=320&s=e752b6d5ea197d376a613dae6a11e6db --- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8Ik55J7RKO_d9U_9RIrYUQ <cite>TheOrangeMisfit posted [p:882733849] in Do you lik... [t:75551168]...</cite> <quote>He's definitely better than Gaybraham Lincoln https://i.redditmedia.com/uQWmVqo2jw3FqE6_V91MXvuURtL5_H_GxhfqlPsKzuk.jpg?w=320&s=e752b6d5ea197d376a613dae6a11e6db</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
gguirao 07/11/17 5:47:57 PM #26:	Sure, he ended the institution of slavery, but he wasn't exactly for equal treatment of black people, either. --- Donald J. Trump--proof against government intelligence. <cite>gguirao posted [p:882737234] in Do you lik... [t:75551168]...</cite> <quote>Sure, he ended the institution of slavery, but he wasn't exactly for equal treatment of black people, either.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 07/11/17 6:17:04 PM #27:	While ultimately he kept the nation together, I find him somewhat overrated for the methods employed and the power grabs afterward. Also, on a more basic level, I'm half-inclined to think that, if your government purports to represent the people, the sovereignty of states shouldn't be ignored. Granted, since we've benefited from a still-united states of America -- which gave us the power to push on will on the rest of the world -- I can't complain that much. ParanoidObsessive posted... TheOrangeMisfit posted... but his decisions and impact are ultimately admirable Some would argue that the massive bloated growth and unchecked power-grabs of the Federal government that followed aren't all that admirable. Others might argue that the militarized solution to slavery in the US is a large part of what helped spur the next 100 years or so of civil rights violations and rampant intolerance in the South. Regardless of the morality or rationality of his intentions, the <impact and long-term consequences of those decisions aren't necessarily as rosy as some people might like to believe. This, plus I blame his hardline stance during the election as spurring on secession and I blame him for not brokering a peace. ParanoidObsessive posted... (And that's not even getting into things like the stereotypical "backwardness" of the modern South being almost entirely the result of the Civil War and events that occurred afterward, because it's harder to blame him for things that happened after he was dead. But he definitely opened the door to help them take place, intentionally or no.) Eh, the North/South cultural divide predates that as well. It certainly didn't help, though, and has become more widely cited in recent history. However, I suspect that no matter what the North would look down on the South. streamofthesky posted... Yeah, the South was known at the time for their tolerance and progressive views towards black people. No place in the US was known for that, so it's a weak comparison. streamofthesky posted... If only that mean ol' Uncle Abe hadn't strong armed them into ending slavery, I'm sure they would've gotten around to it soon enough, and then immediately harbor feelings of nothing but sunshine and rainbows towards the now-free black people who were uneducated and unprepared to fend for themselves...for reasons we'll never know. Given that the rest of the world eventually outlawed slavery and, near as I can recall, largely without bloodshed, it was an eventuality. The idea that you needed to kill nearly half the country to get rid of it RIGHT NOW is silly and, given the disputes surrounding Civil War monuments throughout the South, clearly it had a more adverse effect than in the North where slavery phased out peacefully. And, if you just ended a massive war where almost everybody lost family, homes, livelihood, etc, where could you find a more convenient scapegoat? streamofthesky posted... Worse, he's the guy who knows he's wrong so he tries to ramble on as much as possible to mask that fact and get the other person to just give up arguing. There's some definite irony in Stream making such an accusation. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:882738755] in Do you lik... [t:75551168]...</cite> <quote>While ultimately he kept the nation together, I find him somewhat overrated for the methods employed and the power grabs afterward. Also, on a more basic level, I'm half-inclined to think that, if your government purports to represent the people, the sovereignty of states shouldn't be ignored. Granted, since we've benefited from a still-united states of America -- which gave us the power to push on will on the rest of the world -- I can't complain that much. <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TheOrangeMisfit posted...</cite> <quote>but his decisions and impact are ultimately admirable</quote> Some would argue that the massive bloated growth and unchecked power-grabs of the Federal government that followed aren't all that admirable. Others might argue that the militarized solution to slavery in the US is a large part of what helped spur the next 100 years or so of civil rights violations and rampant intolerance in the South. Regardless of the morality or rationality of his intentions, the <impact and long-term consequences of those decisions aren't necessarily as rosy as some people might like to believe.</quote> This, plus I blame his hardline stance during the election as spurring on secession and I blame him for not brokering a peace. <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted...</cite> <quote>(And that's not even getting into things like the stereotypical "backwardness" of the modern South being almost entirely the result of the Civil War and events that occurred afterward, because it's harder to blame him for things that happened after he was dead. But he definitely opened the door to help them take place, intentionally or no.)</quote> Eh, the North/South cultural divide predates that as well. It certainly didn't help, though, and has become more widely cited in recent history. However, I suspect that no matter what the North would look down on the South. <cite>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote>Yeah, the South was known at the time for their tolerance and progressive views towards black people.</quote> No place in the US was known for that, so it's a weak comparison. <cite>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote>If only that mean ol' Uncle Abe hadn't strong armed them into ending slavery, I'm sure they would've gotten around to it soon enough, and then immediately harbor feelings of nothing but sunshine and rainbows towards the now-free black people who were uneducated and unprepared to fend for themselves...for reasons we'll never know.</quote> Given that the rest of the world eventually outlawed slavery and, near as I can recall, largely without bloodshed, it was an eventuality. The idea that you needed to kill nearly half the country to get rid of it RIGHT NOW is silly and, given the disputes surrounding Civil War monuments throughout the South, clearly it had a more adverse effect than in the North where slavery phased out peacefully. And, if you just ended a massive war where almost everybody lost family, homes, livelihood, etc, where could you find a more convenient scapegoat? <cite>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote> Worse, he's the guy who knows he's wrong so he tries to ramble on as much as possible to mask that fact and get the other person to just give up arguing.</quote> There's some definite irony in Stream making such an accusation.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1

Poll of the Day > Do you like this person: Abraham Lincoln (+) Yeah! (+)

Poll of the Day > Do you like this person: Abraham Lincoln