The Leftard Cultist Talking Point of the Century

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, User said:

No, just calling you the pr1ck you are. 

And you definitely are one. I know we still get to you because you have to go cry to the admin about it. 

The guy is one of the biggest hypocritical a$$holes on here. 

He will literally go on about chuds and such in one breath and in the next he will cry to the heavens about how we just can't seem to have civil discussions around here  

As i understand it he used to mod the place back in the day till there was a revolution and everyone told him to stuff it.

[impartialobserver]

17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You can do that on here with the IGNORE feature.  It works like earplugs, and the Chuds and Maniacs hate it.

 

They will even still respond to your posts like a crazy person...

True. I find that these outspoken types get more purchase in the anonymous online setting. In real life, they stand out. Also, most online forums have a dedicated relative few that inhabit it. Yes, you can ignore on most forums.  In real life, there are a myriad of things to do and so one preoccupy oneself with legit, practical life tasks and therefore ignore the outspoken types. I guess that is the primary reason that I will never leave Nevada. The outspoken, adamant political types here are relatively rare. 

[Black Dog]

On 9/29/2024 at 10:32 PM, CdnFox said:

In fact lots of them are.

Here's what the left needs to get over. At any point in history there are things that are socially acceptable which will not be socially acceptable at a later point in history. This has been the case many many times.

That does not mean that the people of the day who grew up with an accepted the social norms of the time are bad people or didn't achieve incredible things. Sure, Lincoln owns slaves. But that does not mean he was not an incredible person or that he didn't fight and free slaves as well

Lincoln didn't own any slaves dummy lmao.

Quote

 

It is entirely possible to look back at a historical figure and acknowledge that some of the things he thought or did were entirely wrong by the standards that we judge things today, and still acknowledge the incredible achievements and things that he did.

It is wrong to try and erase history just because in history things were not the same as they were today. In fact it's not just wrong it's pretty much criminal. Libraries in history have been burnt with this excuse, populations slaughtered with this excuse, rich histories and cultures lost because of this excuse.

It is the ideology of the Vandals. 

 

No one is erasing history by destroying monuments built to celebrate the achievements of racist scumbag traitors like Bobby Lee. If anything, monuments glorifying people like that whitewash history by depicting them in positive/heroic ways. In fact that was the entire purpose of most Southern Civil War monuments.

Quote

You can idolize the positive elements of Robert E lee and still recognize that slavery was wrong and needed to be destroyed.

What positive elements are we talking about, specifically? 

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

  I guess that is the primary reason that I will never leave Nevada. The outspoken, adamant political types here are relatively rare. 

Hmmm.... the highway between Ely and Reno is where I imagine most trolls to be "living".

But, yes, with the emergence of other forums I find limited enjoyment in "debating" with people who just respond with their moral viewpoint time after time.  Or insult you like CdnFox.  Sometimes they have an interesting point, but like practicing tennis against a wall, the siren call to engage with that activity doesn't come too often.

[impartialobserver]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

Hmmm.... the highway between Ely and Reno is where I imagine most trolls to be "living".

But, yes, with the emergence of other forums I find limited enjoyment in "debating" with people who just respond with their moral viewpoint time after time.  Or insult you like CdnFox.  Sometimes they have an interesting point, but like practicing tennis against a wall, the siren call to engage with that activity doesn't come too often.

For sake of comparison.. NV's version of a "Stop the Steal" march was 12 people on a sidewalk in Carson City. With no opposition, they finally got bored and disbanded by 12 pm. In other cities out West, they had far larger crowds and far more contentious situations. Yes, the folks that live along Interstate 80 are fairly Conservative but not all that active in politics. 

[CdnFox]

55 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Lincoln didn't own any slaves dummy lmao.

Sigh.   Ahem:  New Book reveals that Abraham Lincoln owned ― and sold ― slaves Reel Chicago News

IT's been brought up many times by the left now who question whether the Lincoln memorial should be taken down. 

Seriously, you know if i say it i've PROBABLY looked it up, Why not do a search before looking stupid?

Quote

No one is erasing history by destroying monuments built to celebrate the achievements of racist scumbag traitors like Bobby Lee

Of course they are.  That's the point. The fact is he DID have many great achievements and respectable elements. Which is WHY they want him destroyed. 

Like i said, they've even been taking shots at Lincoln. 

Quote

If anything, monuments glorifying people like that whitewash history by depicting them in positive/heroic ways.

Nope. No more than riel's statues in canada 'white wash' history just because he was a traitor and killed innocent people.  Or did you want to explain to the first nations why all his statues should be taken down?

 

Quote

What positive elements are we talking about, specifically? 

Quite a lot.  He was a great general, which is something north americans always find impressive.  Ceaser, napoleon, Khan, alexander all get a lot of attention as 'great people'.  Ceaser owned slaves you know  .

But he also played a HUGE role in bringing the various states back together after the war. The united states would not look as it does today without his efforts and that might not have been the last of the war either without him. 

His whole story about how he felt about slavery (not a fan) and how he felt about 'freedoms' (big fan) and how he went to war and what he did after the war is absolutely fascinating and he is a figure worthy of recognition and disucssion. America would not be what it was without him. 

So.  There you go.  

[Black Dog]

29 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sigh.   Ahem:  New Book reveals that Abraham Lincoln owned ― and sold ― slaves Reel Chicago News

lol "it was in a press release about a self-published book so it must be true!"

No, Lincoln did not own slaves, this book is a joke and you're retarded for believing it.

Quote

IT's been brought up many times by the left now who question whether the Lincoln memorial should be taken down. 

Oh look another CdnTard post making a claim without a cite.

Quote

Seriously, you know if i say it i've PROBABLY looked it up, Why not do a search before looking stupid?

Yeah I'm aware you probably did 5 seconds of googling and clicked on the first link that confirms your biases but that's not actually research.

Quote

Of course they are.  That's the point. The fact is he DID have many great achievements and respectable elements. Which is WHY they want him destroyed.

No they don't want a traitor and slave-owner who fought to defend chattel slavery honoured as a hero.

Quote

Nope. No more than riel's statues in canada 'white wash' history just because he was a traitor and killed innocent people.  Or did you want to explain to the first nations why all his statues should be taken down?

Oh wow that's a compelling argument. 

It's a simple fact that the confederate monuments were specifically raised to glorify the CSA as part of the "Lost Cause" mythology that sprung up to justify the civil war and whitewash the role of slavery in the conflict.

Quote

Quite a lot.  He was a great general, which is something north americans always find impressive.  Ceaser, napoleon, Khan, alexander all get a lot of attention as 'great people'.  Ceaser owned slaves you know .

He was overrated as a general, actually, who was made to look good by the fact that all the northern generals he faced were even worse until Grant.

Quote

But he also played a HUGE role in bringing the various states back together after the war. The united states would not look as it does today without his efforts and that might not have been the last of the war either without him. 

Prove it. He only lived five years after the war before a rebellious blood clot took him out.

Quote

His whole story about how he felt about slavery (not a fan) and how he felt about 'freedoms' (big fan) and how he went to war and what he did after the war is absolutely fascinating and he is a figure worthy of recognition and disucssion. America would not be what it was without him. 

He hated slavery so much he owned slaves and loved freedom so much that he betrayed his country to fight in defence of slavery. Those are the key things to know about the guy whatever his brief post war career. Well, that and they took the site of Arlington national cemetery from his family as a big "f*ck you" to his treacherous ass.

Edited October 1, 2024 by Black Dog

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

lol "it was in a press release about a self-published book so it must be true!"

No, Lincoln did not own slaves, this book is a joke and you're retarded for believing it.

Oh look another CdnTard post making a claim without a cite.

Yeah I'm aware you probably did 5 seconds of googling and clicked on the first link that confirms your biases but that's not actually research.

No they don't want a traitor and slave-owner who fought to defend chattel slavery honoured as a hero.

Oh wow that's a compelling argument. 

It's a simple fact that the confederate monuments were specifically raised to glorify the CSA as part of the "Lost Cause" mythology that sprung up to justify the civil war and whitewash the role of slavery in the conflict.

He was overrated as a general, actually, who was made to look good by the fact that all the northern generals he faced were even worse until Grant.

Prove it. He only lived five years after the war before a rebellious blood clot took him out.

He hated slavery so much he owned slaves and loved freedom so much that he betrayed his country to fight in defence of slavery. Those are the key things to know about the guy whatever his brief post war career. Well, that and they took the site of Arlington national cemetery from his family as a big "f*ck you" to his treacherous ass.

LOL - an author does research and publishes a book with easily verified facts 

You:  "IT"A  BOOK!! IT MUST BE FALSE!!!  BOOKS ARE SCARY AND EVIL!!!!!

Explains a lot actually. 

Much has been written about it. Sorry to burst your bubble kid. 

And yes  they want to destroy anything about the us history that has a positive element to it. 

And no, thats' not why they put up statues.  Sorry, that's just you trying to excuse the inexcusable act of destroying history. 

And i notice you had no rebuttal for riel. 😮  

And you might think he was overrated as  a general but most don't. And you don't get to erase history just because you don't like it. 

His involvement after the war has been proven and spoken of many times 

 

I get it. You and your kind want to revise history and make everything that was good or noble horrible so that people think of America as a bad place. How else are you going to get people to want to change?

But the fact is he was a pretty amazing person who did some amazing things and played a massive role in history. There's nothing wrong with recognizing that. He certainly wasn't evil and they certainly didn't see themselves as traitors. They felt that the rest of the united states were the ones that were breaking the agreement.

But all you've done is prove my point. You want to rewrite history and you can't do that if people are having legitimate conversations about what the guy did so you want the icons gone so that people stop talking about him.

You're the kind of person that in Years Gone by would have burnt down a library when they sacked a city because it had books they don't like

 

[Black Dog]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

LOL - an author does research and publishes a book with easily verified facts 

You:  "IT"A  BOOK!! IT MUST BE FALSE!!!  BOOKS ARE SCARY AND EVIL!!!!!

Explains a lot actually. 

A self-published book by an anti-Lincoln/pro CSA crank featuring claims that have never been made before and evidence that no one has ever come across in 150+ years and you think it's gospel because you're very dumb.

Quote

Much has been written about it. Sorry to burst your bubble kid. 

Got anything by someone who isn't a crank/is an actual historian of the era? 

Quote

And yes  they want to destroy anything about the us history that has a positive element to it. 

As you would say: nope.

Quote

And no, thats' not why they put up statues.  Sorry, that's just you trying to excuse the inexcusable act of destroying history. 

That's literally why they did it.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/confederate-statues/

https://www.history.com/news/how-the-u-s-got-so-many-confederate-monuments

https://www.splcenter.org/20190201/whose-heritage-public-symbols-confederacy

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/8/18/16165160/confederate-monuments-history-charlottesville-white-supremacy

Quote

And i notice you had no rebuttal for riel. 😮  

Because i'm not interested in getting bogged down in your fatuous false equivalencies here.

Quote

I get it. You and your kind want to revise history and make everything that was good or noble horrible so that people think of America as a bad place. How else are you going to get people to want to change?

Just a reminder the "good and noble" thing we're talking about here is a guy who committed treason to defend chattel slavery. 

Quote

But the fact is he was a pretty amazing person who did some amazing things and played a massive role in history. There's nothing wrong with recognizing that.

*amazing things to defend slavery

Quote

He certainly wasn't evil and they certainly didn't see themselves as traitors. They felt that the rest of the united states were the ones that were breaking the agreement.

The Nazis thought they were good guys too, what's your point? 

Quote

But all you've done is prove my point. You want to rewrite history and you can't do that if people are having legitimate conversations about what the guy did so you want the icons gone so that people stop talking about him.

I want the icons that glorify figures like him gone so people don't come away thinking stupid shit about how he was a great guy fighting for a noble cause like you believe. I'd rather people get the full and accurate picture.

Quote

You're the kind of person that in Years Gone by would have burnt down a library when they sacked a city because it had books they don't like

You're literally rewriting history here by downplaying Lee's commitment to upholding slavery. Though I'm a little surprised you're such a fan of a guy who fought for a "socialist" regime like the CSA as per your previous claims.

Edited October 1, 2024 by Black Dog

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Black Dog said:

A self-published book by an anti-Lincoln/pro CSA crank featuring claims that have never been made before and evidence that no one has ever come across in 150+ years and you think it's gospel because you're very dumb.

Got anything by someone who isn't a crank/is an actual historian of the era? 

As you would say: nope.

That's literally why they did it.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/confederate-statues/

https://www.history.com/news/how-the-u-s-got-so-many-confederate-monuments

https://www.splcenter.org/20190201/whose-heritage-public-symbols-confederacy

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/8/18/16165160/confederate-monuments-history-charlottesville-white-supremacy

Because i'm not interested in getting bogged down in your fatuous false equivalencies here.

Just a reminder the "good and noble" thing we're talking about here is a guy who committed treason to defend chattel slavery. 

*amazing things to defend slavery

The Nazis thought they were good guys too, what's your point? 

I want the icons that glorify figures like him gone so people don't come away thinking stupid shit about how he was a great guy fighting for a noble cause like you believe. I'd rather people get the full and accurate picture.

You're literally rewriting history here by downplaying Lee's commitment to upholding slavery. Though I'm a little surprised you're such a fan of a guy who fought for a "socialist" regime like the CSA as per your previous claims.

Blah blah blah lie lie lie deny deny project. 

Same as always. 
Lincoln owned slaves.  Sorry kiddo. 

Lying about why people care about statues doesn't make your lie true. 

And as noted that's why Riel statues are allowed and your hissy fit to the contrary doesn't change that  

Your only reason for wanting him gone is to make america seem like more of a bad place built on slavery. 

It's pathetic. And you can't even defend yourself, just the usual crap about how it's all my fault you're a bad person. 

[Black Dog]

14 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Blah blah blah lie lie lie deny deny project. 

Same as always. 
Lincoln owned slaves.  Sorry kiddo. 

Lying about why people care about statues doesn't make your lie true. 

And as noted that's why Riel statues are allowed and your hissy fit to the contrary doesn't change that  

Your only reason for wanting him gone is to make america seem like more of a bad place built on slavery. 

It's pathetic. And you can't even defend yourself, just the usual crap about how it's all my fault you're a bad person. 

There's no real evidence Lincoln owned slaves. 

The majority of Confederate monuments were erected decades after the war to promote the lost Cause myth and celebrate white supremacy.

Louis Riel didn't fight to defend the rights of people to keep other human beings in bondage and servitude.

America was built on slavery, pretending it wasn't is erasing history.

And you argued the CSA were socialists.

No wonder you surrender faster than Lee at Appomattox lmao.

[CdnFox]

39 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

There's no real evidence Lincoln owned slaves. 

There's quite a bit.  And it's hardly shocking. You can disapprove of something but still be compelled to participate in it due to the times. Greta hates fossil fuels, think she's ever been in a car?

Your denialism is a perfect example of how the left doesn't cope with fact well. 

Quote

The majority of Confederate monuments were erected decades after the war to promote the lost Cause myth and celebrate white supremacy.

No, they weren't.

Quote

Louis Riel didn't fight to defend the rights of people to keep other human beings in bondage and servitude.

Well not quite true, look up how women were treated at his time by the first nations   but at the end of the day he's still a traitor and murderer. Those are facts. But that doesn't mean we should erase him from history. 

Quote

America was built on slavery, pretending it wasn't is erasing history.

Not even close.  At the height of slavery something like 7 percent of americans owned one, and that was clustered heavily in the south. The vast majority of the US was not imapcted by slavery and was built without it.

Quote

And you argued the CSA were socialists.

I argued the democrats were, but lets say the CSA was.  So what? As i said, people can have negative parts to them and it's still possible to appreciate the good parts.

Quote

No wonder you surrender faster than Lee at Appomattox lmao.

Riiiiightt - everyone around here KNOWS i give up at the drop of a hat  

[Black Dog]

9 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

There's quite a bit.  And it's hardly shocking. You can disapprove of something but still be compelled to participate in it due to the times. Greta hates fossil fuels, think she's ever been in a car?

Your denialism is a perfect example of how the left doesn't cope with fact well. 

"There's quite a bit" he says while sharing zero additional evidence. lmao you fraud.

Quote

No, they weren't.

lol I showed you the evidence you loser, more evidence than you presented for your absurd claims about Lincoln.

Quote

Not even close.  At the height of slavery something like 7 percent of americans owned one, and that was clustered heavily in the south. The vast majority of the US was not imapcted by slavery and was built without it.

Well for starters, your "analysis" excludes one constituency who was very much impacted by slavery: the enslaved, who at the time of the Civil War were 12% of the total U.S. population and nearly half of the Confederacy. So all told that's 20% of the entire U.S. population with direct ties to slavery. And of course there's the economic impacts. The biggest US export before the civil war was cotton, and industry driven entirely by slave labour. The cotton industry also fuelled the American banking/finance, shipping/exports and other sectors. indeed, the transformation of the United States from an agrarian economy to an industrial one was driven by the growth and export of cotton, which in turn was built on the backs of the enslaved.

Quote

I argued the democrats were, but lets say the CSA was.  So what? As i said, people can have negative parts to them and it's still possible to appreciate the good parts.

The point is you're retarded for thinking any of those groups were socialists.

Quote

Riiiiightt - everyone around here KNOWS i give up at the drop of a hat

You always do, you just like to drag out the process.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Black Dog said:

"There's quite a bit" he says while sharing zero additional evidence. lmao you fraud.

So you're saying i'm right and the only way you can dispute it is weird sea lioning attempts   I was agreeing with the poster i was replying to, it would be silly to post examples when we both agree to the facts. 

I notice you couldn't dispute it   Liar   

 

Quote

lol I showed you the evidence you loser, more evidence than you presented for your absurd claims about Lincoln.

Not even a little bit. Which is what we've all come to expect from you.

Quote

Well for starters, your "analysis" excludes one constituency who was very much impacted by slavery: the enslaved, who at the time of the Civil War were 12% of the total U.S. population and nearly half of the Confederacy. So all told that's 20% of the entire U.S. population with direct ties to slavery.

Nope. Apperently you can't Math either. 

Quote

And of course there's the economic impacts. The biggest US export before the civil war was cotton, and industry driven entirely by slave labour.

Which made a very small percent of the population rich but didn't do anything to 'build the country'.  The north that ddidn't benefit from that had the same or better level of development.

Quote

The cotton industry also fuelled the American banking/finance, shipping/exports and other sectors.

There wasn't a noticeable distruption in all that when slavery was abolished.  So we know that it wasn't that big a deal for a fact. 

Cotton was an important trade commodity but it didn't build america. At all.  

 

Quote

indeed, the transformation of the United States from an agrarian economy to an industrial one was driven by the growth and export of cotton, which in turn was built on the backs of the enslaved.

Nope. And in fact cotton and tobacco prices were often on a roller coaster. And cotton was only valuable because of the invention of the cotton gin, by a while person. Before that it wasn't really much of a cash crop. 

So  the cotton gin was invented at the end of the 1700's and by the 1860s slavery was abolished.  So your argument is that the entirety of the us was built in about 70 years.   

Kid, Cotton was important but it did not build america. Advancements in manufacturing that came from england, advances in chemistry that allowed for the production of some advanced materials including gunpowder, and the advancements in mass production that came about during the war of 1812 all did more to contribute to it. 

So at the end of the day america was absolutely 100 percent NOT built on slavery at all. Slaves played an important economic role in the south for a short time in the US's history and was beneficial but by no means did it 'build america'

 
America was built by free men and women.  Sorry for the inconvenience   

Quote

 

The point is you're retarded for thinking any of those groups were socialists.

You always do, you just like to drag out the process.

 

Kid  i don't drag out anything, you're just wrong and whenever you're wrong you freak out and argue stupidly till you tucker yourself out. 

You desperately need for anyone in history you don't like NOT to be a socialist. But the majority of the bad people in history (based on how we today define 'bad') were either socialists or monarchs. 

And slavery and cotton played a role in US history but it's a pretty small role overall. America today would not be much different if the cotton gin never existed. 

[Black Dog]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

So you're saying i'm right and the only way you can dispute it is weird sea lioning attempts   I was agreeing with the poster i was replying to, it would be silly to post examples when we both agree to the facts. 

I notice you couldn't dispute it   Liar   

You provided one citation to some random crank's book claiming Lincoln owned slave. I pressed you for a corroborating source, you said "there's quite a bit" and now you're pussing out and crying about "sealioning" like you usually do because you're a chickenshit fraud.

Quote

Not even a little bit. Which is what we've all come to expect from you.

So you can't address any of the links I provided so you;re just gonna pretend they don't exist? What a pu$$y!

Quote

Nope. Apperently you can't Math either. 

Nope.

Quote

Which made a very small percent of the population rich but didn't do anything to 'build the country'.  The north that didn't benefit from that had the same or better level of development.

The north didn't benefit from the cotton trade? You really are a simpleton.

Quote

There wasn't a noticeable distruption in all that when slavery was abolished.  So we know that it wasn't that big a deal for a fact. 

The fact it was supplanted by other industries after the war has nothing to do with its importance to the economy before the war when those other industries didn't yet exist. In fact, the industrial boom that followed the war was a result of wartime spending and investment in industries like manufacturing and the railroads, so witjout the war to end slavery, that boom might not have happened as it did.

Quote

Cotton was an important trade commodity but it didn't build america. At all.  

Cotton accounted for 60% of the value of all exports from the United States in 1860. The importance of cotton to the whole US economy was one of the reasons the South thought they could get away with secession because they didn't think anyone would go to war and disrupt the cotton trade.

Quote

Nope. And in fact cotton and tobacco prices were often on a roller coaster. And cotton was only valuable because of the invention of the cotton gin, by a while person. Before that it wasn't really much of a cash crop. 

So  the cotton gin was invented at the end of the 1700's and by the 1860s slavery was abolished.  So your argument is that the entirety of the us was built in about 70 years.   

My argument is that the United State's transition from an agrarian society to an industrial and financial powerhouse was fuelled in large part by cotton which depended on slave labour.

Quote

Kid, Cotton was important but it did not build america. Advancements in manufacturing that came from england, advances in chemistry that allowed for the production of some advanced materials including gunpowder, and the advancements in mass production that came about during the war of 1812 all did more to contribute to it. 

Oh look just a bunch of claims with no supporting evidence.

Quote

So at the end of the day america was absolutely 100 percent NOT built on slavery at all. Slaves played an important economic role in the south for a short time in the US's history and was beneficial but by no means did it 'build america'

Again, if you think the economic impact of slavery was confined to the south, you're even dumber than I thought and that's saying something.

Quote

Kid  i don't drag out anything, you're just wrong and whenever you're wrong you freak out and argue stupidly till you tucker yourself out. 

You're dragging it our right now.

Quote

You desperately need for anyone in history you don't like NOT to be a socialist. But the majority of the bad people in history (based on how we today define 'bad') were either socialists or monarchs. 

lol literally "anyone I don't like is a socialist."

Quote

And slavery and cotton played a role in US history but it's a pretty small role overall. America today would not be much different if the cotton gin never existed. 

This is a particularly stupid thing to say given how different the history of the U.S.A would have been if the Civil War hadn't been fought, which it probably wouldn't have if slavery hadn't been so central to the Southern states.

[CdnFox]

39 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

You provided one citation to some random crank's book claiming Lincoln owned slave. I pressed you for a corroborating source, you said "there's quite a bit" and now you're pussing out and crying about "sealioning" like you usually do because you're a chickenshit fraud.

So you can't address any of the links I provided so you;re just gonna pretend they don't exist? What a pu$$y!

Nope.

The north didn't benefit from the cotton trade? You really are a simpleton.

The fact it was supplanted by other industries after the war has nothing to do with its importance to the economy before the war when those other industries didn't yet exist. In fact, the industrial boom that followed the war was a result of wartime spending and investment in industries like manufacturing and the railroads, so witjout the war to end slavery, that boom might not have happened as it did.

Cotton accounted for 60% of the value of all exports from the United States in 1860. The importance of cotton to the whole US economy was one of the reasons the South thought they could get away with secession because they didn't think anyone would go to war and disrupt the cotton trade.

My argument is that the United State's transition from an agrarian society to an industrial and financial powerhouse was fuelled in large part by cotton which depended on slave labour.

Oh look just a bunch of claims with no supporting evidence.

Again, if you think the economic impact of slavery was confined to the south, you're even dumber than I thought and that's saying something.

You're dragging it our right now.

lol literally "anyone I don't like is a socialist."

This is a particularly stupid thing to say given how different the history of the U.S.A would have been if the Civil War hadn't been fought, which it probably wouldn't have if slavery hadn't been so central to the Southern states.

So in other words i provided a document that provides evidence and you provided nothing and somehow that makes ME the bad guy  

I guess that makes sense  

Your links are a joke. As always. You don't attempt to prove you attempt to distract. 

And the north did not benefit from the actual production of cotton, no.  People in the north weren't growing cotton and getting rich. 

Yes, for a few years cotton was the leading export. The us was not built on exports.  And that was for a sliver of it's history. 

Cotton played a role in history but the us was not built on it. Take cotton away but leave the other factors and the us today looks about the same. 

The industrial revolution was not fuelled by cotton. Cotton played a role but it was not the star by any means.  And the only reason it was relevant at all was the invention of the cotton ginny. 

Again, you take cotton out of the mix and the us today is basically the same.

The southern cotton trade did not have a massive impact on the north. It is not the same as saying it had no impact, but it really had minimal impact on the north especially when you consider the totality of American History. It will be comparable to looking at oil and Alberta. Has that had an impact in Canada? Sure. But the vast majority of the impact was confined to Alberta and if alberta had never discovered oil for the most part Canada would be the same place. 

And nothing is being dragged out. This is just you once again trying to rewrite the facts to back up a point that wasn't strong enough to stand on its own. For about 60 years or so slave harvested cotton was a major economic cash crop that made a number of people in the south very rich. It had an impact on the rest of the country but not that big. America was definitely never built on slavery or cotton. If neither had existed America would not be that much different today than it is now

 

Sorry to burst your woke little bubble  

 

[Black Dog]

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So in other words i provided a document that provides evidence and you provided nothing and somehow that makes ME the bad guy  

I guess that makes sense  

Nope:

Quote

You provided one citation to some random crank's book claiming Lincoln owned slave. I pressed you for a corroborating source, you said "there's quite a bit" and now you're pussing out and crying about "sealioning" like you usually do because you're a chickenshit fraud.

 

Quote

Your links are a joke. As always. You don't attempt to prove you attempt to distract

LMAO you posted a press release about a self-published book as your evidence and you're crying about my links? You have no self-awareness at all.

Quote

And the north did not benefit from the actual production of cotton, no.  People in the north weren't growing cotton and getting rich. 

Do you genuinely think that the only people making money from cotton were the people growing it? That the New England textile mills that processed it, the New York banks that financed the trade, the Massachusetts shipyards that built the vessels to export the cotton, and on and on; none of those generated any wealth?

Quote

Yes, for a few years cotton was the leading export. The us was not built on exports.  And that was for a sliver of it's history. 

Just for a few years when cotton was the number one commodity in the entire world and the U.S. it's main producer and exporter. Just a sheer coincidence that the time the US was the world's cotton king (75% of the entire global supply came from America) was a period of massive economic growth.

Quote

The industrial revolution was not fuelled by cotton. Cotton played a role but it was not the star by any means. And the only reason it was relevant at all was the invention of the cotton ginny. 

Lol that's like arguing the only reason the automobile industry is relevant was because of the internal combustion engine. Turns out the invention that completely transformed an industry and economy was pretty significant.

Quote

Again, you take cotton out of the mix and the us today is basically the same.

The idea that the United States would look the same if cotton wasn't a key crop (and therefore if the civil war never happened) is truly one of the stupidest things you've ever claimed.

Quote

The southern cotton trade did not have a massive impact on the north. It is not the same as saying it had no impact, but it really had minimal impact on the north especially when you consider the totality of American History. 

We aren't considering the totality of American history here. We're considering the part of American history where chattel slavery was legal to determine the extent to which the labour of enslaved people contributed to America's economic growth in the 19th Century.

Quote

It will be comparable to looking at oil and Alberta. Has that had an impact in Canada? Sure. But the vast majority of the impact was confined to Alberta and if alberta had never discovered oil for the most part Canada would be the same place. 

Well no it would be a significantly poorer place if you took out the billions of dollars Alberta's oil has pumped into the economy over the years.

Quote

And nothing is being dragged out. This is just you once again trying to rewrite the facts to back up a point that wasn't strong enough to stand on its own. For about 60 years or so slave harvested cotton was a major economic cash crop that made a number of people in the south very rich. It had an impact on the rest of the country but not that big. America was definitely never built on slavery or cotton. If neither had existed America would not be that much different today than it is now

Your case is so poor you've been reduced to repeating the same unproven assertions and absurd unfalsifiable counterfactuals. Whatever dumbass shit you might think might have happened if cotton and therefore slavery wasn't a massive contributor to America's economic growth in the 19th century, the reality is: it was.

[WestCanMan]

Lincoln: https://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation

• Lincoln wasn’t an abolitionist.

• Lincoln didn’t believe Black people should have the same rights as white people.

 

[CdnFox]

28 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Nope:

 

LMAO you posted a press release about a self-published book as your evidence and you're crying about my links? You have no self-awareness at all.

Do you genuinely think that the only people making money from cotton were the people growing it? That the New England textile mills that processed it, the New York banks that financed the trade, the Massachusetts shipyards that built the vessels to export the cotton, and on and on; none of those generated any wealth?

Just for a few years when cotton was the number one commodity in the entire world and the U.S. it's main producer and exporter. Just a sheer coincidence that the time the US was the world's cotton king (75% of the entire global supply came from America) was a period of massive economic growth.

Lol that's like arguing the only reason the automobile industry is relevant was because of the internal combustion engine. Turns out the invention that completely transformed an industry and economy was pretty significant.

The idea that the United States would look the same if cotton wasn't a key crop (and therefore if the civil war never happened) is truly one of the stupidest things you've ever claimed.

We aren't considering the totality of American history here. We're considering the part of American history where chattel slavery was legal to determine the extent to which the labour of enslaved people contributed to America's economic growth in the 19th Century.

Well no it would be a significantly poorer place if you took out the billions of dollars Alberta's oil has pumped into the economy over the years.

Your case is so poor you've been reduced to repeating the same unproven assertions and absurd unfalsifiable counterfactuals. Whatever dumbass shit you might think might have happened if cotton and therefore slavery wasn't a massive contributor to America's economic growth in the 19th century, the reality is: it was.

Yep.

So it would appear that you can't forfeit any of the facts in the book. Fair enough

And we've already been over this. I get that When you are shown to be wrong about something you try and slightly change what was said so that you could come at it from a different angle and maybe try to win next time. But that's just stupid.

America was not built on cotton. Slaves and cotton were only linked as a significant thing for about 60 years out of American history and while it had an impact it wasn't the driving force for industrialization, it wasn't financially the pillar that America was built on, it didn't affect the majority of lives. And only a tiny portion of the people involved were slave owners. If slavery and cotton picking hadn't been a thing America would be substantially the same as it is now.

So that argument's out of the way. If you want to keep telling yourself lies then do it in front of a mirror  

Which brings us back to the original commentary. It is entirely 100% possible to look at someone's life and say he did amazing things, even though some of the things he did or believed or said are not things we would agree with today.

The reason for pulling statues down is to try and rewrite history to make America look like an evil place.

Which is exactly what you were doing by trying to pretend that all of America Was built on slavery, A tiny bit remotely true. 

 

And sorry, Alberta would be a significantly poor place but Canada itself would not be significantly poorer in the slightest if there was no Alberta oil. Which is why during the big crash in 2014 Alberta they severe financial challenges, where is the government of Canada barely felt it. Billions of dollars doesn't mean much in an economy worth trillions. this is a common misconception. Oil makes alberta rich but while it's a benefit to canada, it's not that big a deal. 

[Black Dog]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yep.

So it would appear that you can't forfeit any of the facts in the book. Fair enough

LOL the facts here are the claim that Lincoln owned slaves is based on the idea his wife may have inherited enslaved persons from her father in 1849 (even though the Lincolns were living in Illinois at the time where slavery was illegal) and sold them immediately. Pretty thin gruel. Got anything else? (lol of course you don't)

Quote

And we've already been over this. I get that When you are shown to be wrong about something you try and slightly change what was said so that you could come at it from a different angle and maybe try to win next time. But that's just stupid.

No on, I get how you work: you make a dumb claim, present some bogus evidence and then cry about "sealioning" when anyone asks you to back it up. You're utterly predictable, and never more so when you're getting taken to the woodshed like you are right now.

Quote

America was not built on cotton. Slaves and cotton were only linked as a significant thing for about 60 years out of American history and while it had an impact it wasn't the driving force for industrialization, it wasn't financially the pillar that America was built on, it didn't affect the majority of lives. And only a tiny portion of the people involved were slave owners. If slavery and cotton picking hadn't been a thing America would be substantially the same as it is now.

Lol you can't actually refute anything I've said with facts so you're just copying and pasting the same dumb claims you made the last four posts that I've already addressed and dismantled. Pathetic.

And btw "America would be the same today if the Civil War didn't happen" is still a phenomenally stupid claim.

Quote

 

Which brings us back to the original commentary. It is entirely 100% possible to look at someone's life and say he did amazing things, even though some of the things he did or believed or said are not things we would agree with today.

 

Sure, but it's impossible to convey the complexities of an individual's life through a statue explicitly designed to glorify one aspect of it.

Quote

The reason for pulling statues down is to try and rewrite history to make America look like an evil place.

Nope. the reason for pulling down statues of people like Lee is he was a piece of shit traitor and slaveowner.

Bye b!tch!

Quote

Which is exactly what you were doing by trying to pretend that all of America Was built on slavery, A tiny bit remotely true. 

LOL you're complaining that pulling down statues erases history and obscures the complexity of individuals, yet refuse to acknowledge any history that isn't completely sanitized in service of your simplistic narrative. Stupid.

Quote

And sorry, Alberta would be a significantly poor place but Canada itself would not be significantly poorer in the slightest if there was no Alberta oil. Which is why during the big crash in 2014 Alberta they severe financial challenges, where is the government of Canada barely felt it. Billions of dollars doesn't mean much in an economy worth trillions. this is a common misconception. Oil makes alberta rich but while it's a benefit to canada, it's not that big a deal. 

The problem here is the same as your stupid argument about cotton in that you think the only people who benefit from a commodity are those who produce it.

[CdnFox]

14 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

LOL the facts here are the claim that Lincoln owned slaves is based on the idea his wife may have inherited enslaved persons from her father in 1849 (even though the Lincolns were living in Illinois at the time where slavery was illegal) and sold them immediately. Pretty thin gruel. Got anything else? (lol of course you don't)

So he owned and sold slaves. 

well there you go.  Turns out i was right all along.  Yawn. 

The point being we can look at that and say its true and STILL say he did other things which were incredible. 

By today's standards selling someone into slavery for ANY reason is considered really bad.  But we can look at the times and the circumstances and still look at good things they did 

The only reason to do otherwise is to erase history

[Black Dog]

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So he owned and sold slaves. 

Well, no he didn't. The claim that his wife inherited slaves and therefore he owned them is false. There's no evidence that happened.

Quote

well there you go.  Turns out i was right all along.  Yawn. 

You weren't and it's pretty funny you still haven't proven that this bullshit false claim is somehow common knowledge like you said it was.

Quote

 

The point being we can look at that and say its true and STILL say he did other things which were incredible. 

By today's standards selling someone into slavery for ANY reason is considered really bad.  But we can look at the times and the circumstances and still look at good things they did 

The only reason to do otherwise is to erase history

 

The point is you saw one thing on the internet that made a claim and you decided to believe it because you're a reflexive contrarian and easily duped by things that confirm your priors. Did you even read that crank's book?

[CdnFox]

36 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Well, no he didn't.

You literally just said he did.  

Ahhh  i see, you're flip flopping in the hopes it'll distract from the main conversation because you'd rather be wrong about something small that admit you were wrong about something bigger. 

Sorry kiddo   Trying to be a smaller loser is kind of a weird angle  

And of course it doesnt' change the bigger loser point, which is that its entirely possible to look at people who were not perfect by today's standard and still appreciate the good things they did 

To do otherwise is to erase history .

Deal with that or admit you're a big AND small loser  

[SkyHigh]

On 9/29/2024 at 11:59 AM, WestCanMan said:

I didn't "accuse you" of anything, I just would have said something about you that was demonstrably true, which I don't even remember now, Sky High.

I just don't care about you. You're just one little cultist dipshit among millions.

You most certainly did.

I asked why you used such divisive and confrontational language if your interest lies in honest debate. You responded with more vitriol, when I expressed my opinion that it seemed obvious to me that in fact you had no interest in serious or good faith conversations you resorted (as you always do) to brushing me off as a "leftard cultist' a claim that has no basis in reality but is simply your reflex action because all you're truly looking for is someone to confirm your extremist views or a fight with some left wing nutjob.

So , either speak to me like as the nuanced, thoughtful, non partisan person that is actually looking for the best solutions for the problems we both agree society is facing that I am, or support your continued assertions about me.

My money says you can't do either.

[SkyHigh]

On 9/30/2024 at 7:07 PM, impartialobserver said:

Some folks are all about emotion, passion, and the need for affirmation (for us or against us). They come here because out in the open they get sanctioned (if it is a legal or workplace setting) or ignored. In daily life.. I see an extremist, I can walk around them and tune them out. 

Exactly, these people have no external validation, the only way they can get any honest reaction out of people is to be so extreme they either find like minded numbskulls or are able to generate hate from the feeble minded masses.

I can't get mad at those types, I feel only pity never anger.

They are fun to laugh at though . Hahaha