[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So the solution to not having my wealth taken by force is to not have any wealth. Nice.
That guy stole your tv? well, you shouldn’t have worked hard and bought a nice one. If only the police used your logic.[/quote]
Oh for…
You’re right, you’re the Kunta Kinte of 2010. Here’s to hoping the underground railroad reaches you.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Are you guys aware that the US collects taxes from people based on citizenship, not location. And since you are by birth a citizen and it is both hard and expensive to renounce it, they essentially take money solely based on the fact that you were born. This “you can just leave” thing is total BS.[/quote]
Renounce citizenship. Many expat retires do it.[/quote]
It is not that easy and requires money and me leaving my home and obtaining a home somewhere else. not to mention the irs can still claim to own you for 10 more years if you have some net worth.
[/quote]
If you don’t have the money then you are not paying taxes and probably benefiting from others.
You do have a choice in life. Don;t take a victim mentality.[/quote]
Uh what? if you have money, you aren’t paying taxes?
and slaves had a choice too, they could just not breath. Everyone ultimately has choices in oppression, being aloud some more choices doesn’t make it not oppression.[/quote]
Read it again. Don’t have money then don’t pay taxes.
Yep, victim mentality.[/quote]
So the solution to not having my wealth taken by force is to not have any wealth. Nice.
That guy stole your tv? well, you shouldn’t have worked hard and bought a nice one. If only the police used your logic.[/quote]
So you want to use society to build personal wealth and then when you are asked to pay a share for roads, education, clean water etc you refuse to pay?
Who is the thief?
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
…
I think it is your high school education that has fucked you up.[/quote]
It is pretty obvious you didn’t get one and are very susceptible to believing bizarre shit you read on the internet.
I feel like I am talking to a crazy soapbox preacher when I read your posts.
[/quote]
So because what I write is bizarre, by your standard, it must therefore be untrue?
You have no regard for logic. I don’t care how many degrees you have – there’s no solution to that.
You have not demonstrated one analytically rigorous argument since this thread began. I on the other hand have refuted every piece of illogic thrown my way.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Are you guys aware that the US collects taxes from people based on citizenship, not location. And since you are by birth a citizen and it is both hard and expensive to renounce it, they essentially take money solely based on the fact that you were born. This “you can just leave” thing is total BS.[/quote]
Renounce citizenship. Many expat retires do it.[/quote]
It is not that easy and requires money and me leaving my home and obtaining a home somewhere else. not to mention the irs can still claim to own you for 10 more years if you have some net worth.
[/quote]
If you don’t have the money then you are not paying taxes and probably benefiting from others.
You do have a choice in life. Don;t take a victim mentality.[/quote]
Uh what? if you have money, you aren’t paying taxes?
and slaves had a choice too, they could just not breath. Everyone ultimately has choices in oppression, being aloud some more choices doesn’t make it not oppression.[/quote]
Read it again. Don’t have money then don’t pay taxes.
Yep, victim mentality.[/quote]
So the solution to not having my wealth taken by force is to not have any wealth. Nice.
That guy stole your tv? well, you shouldn’t have worked hard and bought a nice one. If only the police used your logic.[/quote]
So you want to use society to build personal wealth and then when you are asked to pay a share for roads, education, clean water etc you refuse to pay?
Who is the thief?[/quote]
How have I used society?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So the solution to not having my wealth taken by force is to not have any wealth. Nice.
That guy stole your tv? well, you shouldn’t have worked hard and bought a nice one. If only the police used your logic.[/quote]
Oh for…
You’re right, you’re the Kunta Kinte of 2010. Here’s to hoping the underground railroad reaches you. [/quote]
Stupid. Just plain stupid. Yes, people have had it worse before me. The same could be said of the slaves. Moral justification by comparison is something 12 year olds do when they want to stay up late. “But timmy’s mom lets him stay up till 9:30 mom”
Edit: I just wanted to point out that this is actually the same argument many used to justify slavery.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
…
I think it is your high school education that has fucked you up.[/quote]
It is pretty obvious you didn’t get one and are very susceptible to believing bizarre shit you read on the internet.
I feel like I am talking to a crazy soapbox preacher when I read your posts.
[/quote]
So because what I write is bizarre, by your standard, it must therefore be untrue?
You have no regard for logic. I don’t care how many degrees you have – there’s no solution to that.
You have not demonstrated one analytically rigorous argument since this thread began. I on the other hand have refuted every piece of illogic thrown my way.[/quote]
Except for me. You haven’t refuted my assertion that Lincoln was not motivated primarily by economy with any sort of primary evidence to the contrary. Since we are talking about historical matters, the ONLY evidence is primary evidence. Don’t try to tell me that some lengthy dissertation from Murray Rothbard counts, because it doesn’t directly address the questions I put forth to you.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
…
I think it is your high school education that has fucked you up.[/quote]
It is pretty obvious you didn’t get one and are very susceptible to believing bizarre shit you read on the internet.
I feel like I am talking to a crazy soapbox preacher when I read your posts.
[/quote]
So because what I write is bizarre, by your standard, it must therefore be untrue?
You have no regard for logic. I don’t care how many degrees you have – there’s no solution to that.
You have not demonstrated one analytically rigorous argument since this thread began. I on the other hand have refuted every piece of illogic thrown my way.[/quote]
Except for me. You haven’t refuted my assertion that Lincoln was not motivated primarily by economy with any sort of primary evidence to the contrary. Since we are talking about historical matters, the ONLY evidence is primary evidence. Don’t try to tell me that some lengthy dissertation from Murray Rothbard counts, because it doesn’t directly address the questions I put forth to you. [/quote]
Motivation is something that can only be known by one person and guessed at by evaluation of actions by others. Actions, not words are the best way to guess motive.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
…
I think it is your high school education that has fucked you up.[/quote]
It is pretty obvious you didn’t get one and are very susceptible to believing bizarre shit you read on the internet.
I feel like I am talking to a crazy soapbox preacher when I read your posts.
[/quote]
So because what I write is bizarre, by your standard, it must therefore be untrue?
You have no regard for logic. I don’t care how many degrees you have – there’s no solution to that.
You have not demonstrated one analytically rigorous argument since this thread began. I on the other hand have refuted every piece of illogic thrown my way.[/quote]
Except for me. You haven’t refuted my assertion that Lincoln was not motivated primarily by economy with any sort of primary evidence to the contrary. Since we are talking about historical matters, the ONLY evidence is primary evidence. Don’t try to tell me that some lengthy dissertation from Murray Rothbard counts, because it doesn’t directly address the questions I put forth to you. [/quote]
Motivation is something that can only be known by one person and guessed at by evaluation of actions by others. Actions, not words are the best way to guess motive. [/quote]
Exactly. You’ve made my point for me. Lincoln’s actions refuted the notion that he cared more about the revenue stream from the South than he did preserving the Union. He tried to end slavery in the South and he tried to stop its expansion into the territories. Since Lifticus refuses to address this, perhaps you can.
If Lincoln cared primarily about revenue streams from the South, why did literally every one of his actions make an attempt to curtail that flow? Why would he make cotton/tobacco production less profitable by freeing slaves? Why would he make any other endeavor in the territories less profitable by disallowing slave labor? Why did he not just allow the seceded states to come back into the Union and keep slavery there, rather than risk forever losing that source of revenue? Why did he run on a platform in 1860 that all but guaranteed secession if he was elected?
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
…
I think it is your high school education that has fucked you up.[/quote]
It is pretty obvious you didn’t get one and are very susceptible to believing bizarre shit you read on the internet.
I feel like I am talking to a crazy soapbox preacher when I read your posts.
[/quote]
So because what I write is bizarre, by your standard, it must therefore be untrue?
You have no regard for logic. I don’t care how many degrees you have – there’s no solution to that.
You have not demonstrated one analytically rigorous argument since this thread began. I on the other hand have refuted every piece of illogic thrown my way.[/quote]
Except for me. You haven’t refuted my assertion that Lincoln was not motivated primarily by economy with any sort of primary evidence to the contrary. Since we are talking about historical matters, the ONLY evidence is primary evidence. Don’t try to tell me that some lengthy dissertation from Murray Rothbard counts, because it doesn’t directly address the questions I put forth to you. [/quote]
Motivation is something that can only be known by one person and guessed at by evaluation of actions by others. Actions, not words are the best way to guess motive. [/quote]
Exactly. You’ve made my point for me. Lincoln’s actions refuted the notion that he cared more about the revenue stream from the South than he did preserving the Union. He tried to end slavery in the South and he tried to stop its expansion into the territories. Since Lifticus refuses to address this, perhaps you can.
If Lincoln cared primarily about revenue streams from the South, why did literally every one of his actions make an attempt to curtail that flow? Why would he make cotton/tobacco production less profitable by freeing slaves? Why would he make any other endeavor in the territories less profitable by disallowing slave labor? Why did he not just allow the seceded states to come back into the Union and keep slavery there, rather than risk forever losing that source of revenue? Why did he run on a platform in 1860 that all but guaranteed secession if he was elected?[/quote]
War conduct and action says differently. Even the emancipation proclamation says differently.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
…
I think it is your high school education that has fucked you up.[/quote]
It is pretty obvious you didn’t get one and are very susceptible to believing bizarre shit you read on the internet.
I feel like I am talking to a crazy soapbox preacher when I read your posts.
[/quote]
So because what I write is bizarre, by your standard, it must therefore be untrue?
You have no regard for logic. I don’t care how many degrees you have – there’s no solution to that.
You have not demonstrated one analytically rigorous argument since this thread began. I on the other hand have refuted every piece of illogic thrown my way.[/quote]
Except for me. You haven’t refuted my assertion that Lincoln was not motivated primarily by economy with any sort of primary evidence to the contrary. Since we are talking about historical matters, the ONLY evidence is primary evidence. Don’t try to tell me that some lengthy dissertation from Murray Rothbard counts, because it doesn’t directly address the questions I put forth to you. [/quote]
Motivation is something that can only be known by one person and guessed at by evaluation of actions by others. Actions, not words are the best way to guess motive. [/quote]
Exactly. You’ve made my point for me. Lincoln’s actions refuted the notion that he cared more about the revenue stream from the South than he did preserving the Union. He tried to end slavery in the South and he tried to stop its expansion into the territories. Since Lifticus refuses to address this, perhaps you can.
If Lincoln cared primarily about revenue streams from the South, why did literally every one of his actions make an attempt to curtail that flow? Why would he make cotton/tobacco production less profitable by freeing slaves? Why would he make any other endeavor in the territories less profitable by disallowing slave labor? Why did he not just allow the seceded states to come back into the Union and keep slavery there, rather than risk forever losing that source of revenue? Why did he run on a platform in 1860 that all but guaranteed secession if he was elected?[/quote]
War conduct and action says differently. Even the emancipation proclamation says differently.[/quote]
Could you expand on that? I’m not following you. No sarcasm either.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
…
I think it is your high school education that has fucked you up.[/quote]
It is pretty obvious you didn’t get one and are very susceptible to believing bizarre shit you read on the internet.
I feel like I am talking to a crazy soapbox preacher when I read your posts.
[/quote]
So because what I write is bizarre, by your standard, it must therefore be untrue?
You have no regard for logic. I don’t care how many degrees you have – there’s no solution to that.
You have not demonstrated one analytically rigorous argument since this thread began. I on the other hand have refuted every piece of illogic thrown my way.[/quote]
Except for me. You haven’t refuted my assertion that Lincoln was not motivated primarily by economy with any sort of primary evidence to the contrary. Since we are talking about historical matters, the ONLY evidence is primary evidence. Don’t try to tell me that some lengthy dissertation from Murray Rothbard counts, because it doesn’t directly address the questions I put forth to you. [/quote]
Motivation is something that can only be known by one person and guessed at by evaluation of actions by others. Actions, not words are the best way to guess motive. [/quote]
Exactly. You’ve made my point for me. Lincoln’s actions refuted the notion that he cared more about the revenue stream from the South than he did preserving the Union. He tried to end slavery in the South and he tried to stop its expansion into the territories. Since Lifticus refuses to address this, perhaps you can.
If Lincoln cared primarily about revenue streams from the South, why did literally every one of his actions make an attempt to curtail that flow? Why would he make cotton/tobacco production less profitable by freeing slaves? Why would he make any other endeavor in the territories less profitable by disallowing slave labor? Why did he not just allow the seceded states to come back into the Union and keep slavery there, rather than risk forever losing that source of revenue? Why did he run on a platform in 1860 that all but guaranteed secession if he was elected?[/quote]
War conduct and action says differently. Even the emancipation proclamation says differently.[/quote]
Could you expand on that? I’m not following you. No sarcasm either. [/quote]
If the mark of a commander is the conduct of his troops in victory.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
…
I think it is your high school education that has fucked you up.[/quote]
It is pretty obvious you didn’t get one and are very susceptible to believing bizarre shit you read on the internet.
I feel like I am talking to a crazy soapbox preacher when I read your posts.
[/quote]
So because what I write is bizarre, by your standard, it must therefore be untrue?
You have no regard for logic. I don’t care how many degrees you have – there’s no solution to that.
You have not demonstrated one analytically rigorous argument since this thread began. I on the other hand have refuted every piece of illogic thrown my way.[/quote]
You are one of the most illogical frequent posters here. Even on the few occasions when I agree with what you write I disagree with the way you arrive at the conclusion.
Your questioning my logic is meaningless and you have refuted nothing.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
How have I used society?[/quote]
Do you drive on roads? Do you use the internet? Do you drink water from the tap? Do you shower? Did you get a public education?
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
How have I used society?[/quote]
Do you drive on roads? Do you use the internet? Do you drink water from the tap? Do you shower?
[/quote]
Yes, all of which not only have I payed to do, but I helped build. If not for individual efforts like mine, none of that would exist.
[quote]
Did you get a public education? [/quote]
Some public some private. The private was better AND it all could have been private without taxation.
I contend that society has in fact used me. not the other way around.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
How have I used society?[/quote]
Do you drive on roads? Do you use the internet? Do you drink water from the tap? Do you shower?
[/quote]
Yes, all of which not only have I payed to do, but I helped build. If not for individual efforts like mine, none of that would exist.
[quote]
Did you get a public education? [/quote]
Some public some private. The private was better AND it all could have been private without taxation.
I contend that society has in fact used me. not the other way around.[/quote]
Victim mentality.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
How have I used society?[/quote]
Do you drive on roads? Do you use the internet? Do you drink water from the tap? Do you shower?
[/quote]
Yes, all of which not only have I payed to do, but I helped build. If not for individual efforts like mine, none of that would exist.
^Idiot mentality
You see, I can contradict you without logically refuting anything too. Is this the part where I should claim victory?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
How have I used society?[/quote]
Do you drive on roads? Do you use the internet? Do you drink water from the tap? Do you shower?
[/quote]
Yes, all of which not only have I payed to do, but I helped build. If not for individual efforts like mine, none of that would exist.
^Idiot mentality
You see, I can contradict you without logically refuting anything too. Is this the part where I should claim victory?[/quote]
Whatever floats your boat. You are wasting my time and embarrassing yourself. I will cede the last post to you and you can claim burning my finger on the stove means taxation and slavery are the same thing.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
How have I used society?[/quote]
Do you drive on roads? Do you use the internet? Do you drink water from the tap? Do you shower?
[/quote]
Yes, all of which not only have I payed to do, but I helped build. If not for individual efforts like mine, none of that would exist.
^Idiot mentality
You see, I can contradict you without logically refuting anything too. Is this the part where I should claim victory?[/quote]
Whatever floats your boat. You are wasting my time and embarrassing yourself. I will cede the last post to you and you can claim burning my finger on the stove means taxation and slavery are the same thing.[/quote]
Terrible straw man.
[quote]orion wrote:
He did however repeatedly and specifically state that he did not care about slavery, one way or the other.
[/quote]
Holy shit that is false. He repeatedly and consistently condemnded it. Whether or not he had the political capital to hold the presidency, preserve the union AND legislate an end to slavery is another matter apart from how he personally felt about it.
I’m sure its been torn apart in this thread already.