Attack of the Straw Man

I'm going to respond to the top 3 most offensive and insulting to yours truly.
  • 4a. Also you talk about how flippant I am with constitutionally protected rights and I must to assume you are joking. The irony is so thick I am choking. You talk about it, but refuse to acknowledge slavery as an issue, till I ply you on it. You are more worried about those southern racists being taxed and the "detainees" than the entire race of humans being bought and sold and used as property! CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS? During this period in U.S. history the South is having their rights infringed upon? Not the Slaves? The south and the detainees? WOW! Look really hard at that and try NOT to see the 4 million pound elephant in the room.

First of all, I never said the slavery wasn't evil or that slaves weren't having their natural or constitutional rights infringed upon. That wasn't what we were debating. I thought we were talking about why the South seceded, not whether or not Slavery was wrong, immoral, evil, etc. We were also talking about whether or not Lincoln was a racist, tyrannical bastard or "the greatest American President" as you proclaim. You've admitted and it can't be denied that he deprived US citizens of their constitutionally protected rights and defended his actions on the grounds that he was doing "what he had to do". So yes, you are flippant about those rights and you can't whitewash that fact with your mock, righteous indignation about something I never said, much less believe.

4. The How is Lincoln different other than the body count! Ok I'll give your
number, for the fun of it. But then detaining 13,535 people during the Civil War
is the same as Nazism? Maybe a starting point to an intelligent disagreement
(instead of a hysterical) would be to recognize and acknowledge the difference
between detention and systematic genocide. If you can't tell the difference were
done here.

Again, Lincoln deprived US citizens of their constitutionally protected rights and through the war was responsible for 600,000+ battlefield deaths and 50,000 Southern civilian deaths. Of course, the size and scope of his crimes against humanity are not as large as Adolf, Mao, Stalin, etc and I acknowledged that fact when I asked how Lincoln was different other than the body count. So yes, the fact that Lincoln had a lower body count and didn't go all out for genocide, doesn't change that fact that he was a racist, tyrannical bastard. But, in your mind, it had to be done and so that makes it ok. If you think infringing upon someones rights is ok as long as Dear Leader says "it had to be done", then yes, we are done here.

6. Most importantly it's clear that I will never be able to convince you of the
greatness of Lincoln, because you judge every decision through the haze of a
non-existent, never-existed, never could exist ideological pipe dream. Please
tell me when the government that you espouse ever existed? You knock down
Lincoln because he didn't run the government according to some absurdly
Pollyana-ish idea of government. You are like the physicist who, when called in
by a farmer to figure out why his chickens aren't laying any eggs, replies "I
have an answer but it only works with spherical chickens in a vacuum." But
whatever, it seems to make you happy brother, so keep puffing away. If that
makes me a lackey to Lincoln's Big Brother fine, better that than to carry water
for little sister....the racist southern junto and their slaveocracy.

First, I don't espouse any type of government. I'm an Anarcho-Capitalist. Second, I'm not "carrying water" for the Southern "slaveocracy." Again, without any justification, you're implying that I'm pro slavery. What do you fancy latin quoting types call that debating tactic? I think it's called a "straw man" but I could be wrong. I can't wait till you accuse me of kicking dogs, drowning cats, molesting kids and beating women. That has got to be next, right? I'm carrying water for freedom and self-determination, for getting Big Brother off of our backs and out of our wallets. You ask what type of government I would espouse? I would accept or espouse a Federal Government equal to or less than it existed in America just after the Revolutionary War, which is to say, basically non-existent.

You kill me, so it's "absurdly Pollyana-ish" to assume that the Government and the President should respect and protect our Constitutional rights and not to run roughshod over them? OK. Who's smoking what?

Just so there isn't any more confusion or labeling me with ideas I don't espouse. Here's a quick list of what I thought we were talking about and what I believe.

You said, Lincoln was the greatest American President.

I said he was a racist, tyrannical bastard because 1) he was a racist. My quote, just like your Che quote, proves that point. 2) He infringed upon US citizens constitutionally protected rights, 3) he was responsible for 600,00+ battlefield deaths, 4) he was responsible for 50,000+ Southern civilian deaths, men, women and children through the bombing, burning, blockading and destruction of Southern Cities. If that doesn't qualify someone for being a racist, tyrannical bastard, then I don't know what does.

I believe in freedom, free agency and self determination.

I believe that states do have a right to secede from the Union if they so choose. In fact it is an obligation to secede, in my mind, whether or not there is a "secession clause" in the Constitution, if the Federal Government becomes oppressive and dictatorial. Seeing as how I'm ignorant of history and the constitution, did you find a "no secession" clause in the Constitution? In the end, the fact the the Southern states were evil slave owning states is irrelevant as to whether or not they should have the right to secede or not and whether or not the Big Brother should go to War to prevent them.

If the situation was reversed and the Northern states decided to seceede from the Union for whatever reason, would it have been alright for the Southern States to go to war to stop them? I say NO and I'm assuming you would say YES. Would you condemn Jefferson Davis for targeting civilians, burning Chicago to the ground, blockading the North, and causing 600,000+ battlefield deaths and 50,000+ civilian deaths, all while infringing upon the constitutionally protected rights of his citizens all supposedly in an effort to preserve the Union, or say he was the greatest American president? Just curious. How bout, if California wanted to seceede now, would you be in favor of Obama sending in the troops killing military personnel and civilians alike, barring exit and entry of goods, bombing Los Angeles and destroying their infrastructure? It seems to me, that in order to be consistent, you would have to be, but a "realist" like you has the option of changing his stance based upon who's doing what to whom I guess.

I believe that slavery is wrong, evil, immoral, unjust and the people who practiced it will get whats coming to them when they stand, in judgement, before God. I also believe that the draft, conscription, "stop loss" policies are wrong, evil, immoral and unjust as they make slaves out of men.

I believe that attacking and targeting civilians in war is evil and immoral. It was when the US firebombed Dresden, Berlin, Tokyo, etc. It is when Al-Qaeda detonates car bombs in crowded markets. It is when suicide bombers detonate themselves in public. It is when the PLO launches missiles into Israeli cities. It just is and it doesn't matter who does it or why they feel they needed to do it.

I'll keep carrying water for Freedom and you can keep carrying water for a racist, tyrannical bastard. I will freely admit that he's not the most racist, tyrannical bastard in history, but that's not saying much.

Down with Big Brother!

Piss on Lincoln!


Popular posts from this blog

October retail sales come in strong, especially auto sales

Tea Party Buffalo Pictures

How to spot a fake Tea Partier