See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #201
   On February 22nd, 2011 at 12:30 pm, corkie said:

   On February 22nd, 2011 at 11:16 am, Roland said:

   BTW, Mondamay, welcome to the blog. You are well ahead of the rest of the new commenters, having already had your first clash with the board jackass genius.

   I fixed it for you.

   Let me know when/if you’re ready to demonstrate a shred of sophistication about this issue.

   Btw, do you always react so poorly to questions that destroy your argument?

2. #202
   On February 22nd, 2011 at 12:32 pm, corkie said:

   On February 22nd, 2011 at 11:34 am, Dave Turson said:

   Corkie should have to pay for his obnoxious proddings at a nearby Argument Clinic.

   Yes, how dare I be so obnoxious as to ask an inconvenient question.

3. #203
   On February 22nd, 2011 at 12:35 pm, corkie said:

   On February 22nd, 2011 at 11:45 am, Roland said:

   Everything was entangled, as it always is.

   Exactly. Everything is always entangled. Controversial issues are never simple, yet you refuse to explore the complexities involved in this one.

4. #204
   On February 22nd, 2011 at 1:13 pm, mondamay said:

   1. States had the right to secede as long as the reason to secede was not something bad or something that was counter to the Declaration of Independence. Since slavery was something bad and counter to the D of I, then the secession of the southern states was illegal, and therefore war against the southern states was justified.

   2. States had the right to secede, but because the legally seceded states were practicing something which was so heinous (slavery), that war was justified in ending the practice.

   3. States had no right to secede regardless of the reason, therefore war against the south to prevent secession was justified.

   Corkie: War? What war? Who mentioned a war?

   You probably think it’s “lousy” from a PR perspective because simpleton idiots just like you are too intellectually lazy to be honest about the issue. You continue to repeat the mantra of, “slavery is bad therefore any issue that is related to slavery should be taboo to discuss.”

   Heck, I’m surprised you even allow conversations about Lincoln. After all, he was President for a period when slavery was legal in this country and slavery is bad therefore he’s a lousy topic to bring up.

   Nope I just think it self-evidently damages the case. Just observe your own emotional, frothing, insult-laden responses to my posts.

   By the way, since it worked so well for you, you can have it back:

   On February 22nd, 2011 at 10:52 am, corkie said:
   What was I supposed to answer?

5. #205
   On February 22nd, 2011 at 1:18 pm, Dave Turson said:

   Just read the Constitution of the Confederate States of America. It’s almost a mirror image of the US Constitution but founded explicitly upon slavery.

6. #206
   On February 22nd, 2011 at 1:44 pm, corkie said:

   On February 22nd, 2011 at 1:13 pm, mondamay said:

   Corkie: War? What war? Who mentioned a war?

   Good grief. I didn’t ask you to defend the Constitutionality of the war. I asked you to state the reason you believe the war was justified.

   Do you honest not understand the difference???

   I’ve made it clear that I’m asking for your opinion. Surely, you’re able to give your opinion.

   Nope I just think it self-evidently damages the case

   Um, yeah, I get that. I’m asking you why you think it damages the case. Surely, you’re able to give your opinion.

   What was I supposed to answer?

   I’m glad you asked. Here’s the question you are supposed to answer.

   Which of the following do you believe (by believe I mean – in your opinion)?

   1. States had the right to secede as long as the reason to secede was not something bad or something that was counter to the Declaration of Independence. Since slavery was something bad and counter to the D of I, then the secession of the southern states was illegal, and therefore war against the southern states was justified.

   2. States had the right to secede, but because the legally seceded states were practicing something which was so heinous (slavery), that war was justified in ending the practice.

   3. States had no right to secede regardless of the reason, therefore war against the south to prevent secession was justified.

7. #207
   On February 22nd, 2011 at 1:51 pm, corkie said:

   On February 22nd, 2011 at 1:18 pm, Dave Turson said:

   Just read the Constitution of the Confederate States of America. It’s almost a mirror image of the US Constitution but founded explicitly upon slavery.

   I haven’t once challenged whether or not the southern states seceded because of slavery. In fact, I’ve accepted it as a given.

   I have challenged the claim that the event damages the issue of states rights. For some strange reason, those that make this claim are unable to explain such a claim except to say that slavery is really, really bad as if someone is disagreeing with them about that.

   Do you understand the difference?

8. #208
   On February 22nd, 2011 at 2:07 pm, Roland said:

   Controversial issues are never simple, yet you refuse to explore the complexities involved in this one.

   I am perfectly happy to explore the complexities with people who actually wish to explore ideas, if those complexities are relevant, and not just bs minutia.

   I generally dislike trying to discuss complexities with a worm like you because whenever I try, you ignore or badly misrepresent what I’ve said. For instance, I pointed out there is a difference between saying the South had a right to not be invaded versus saying the North was within their rights to draft its citizens and spend its taxpayers’ dollars to pursue the war, but you ignore that rather relevant and obvious bit of moral difference because it doesn’t fit your antagonistic game to recognize it.

   You are a nasty, argumentative jackass, the worst kind of troll.

9. #209
   On February 22nd, 2011 at 2:16 pm, p51d007 said:

   When the union thugs/socialist/marxist have no ideas to stand on, they will always resort to name calling & cursing.

10. #210
    On February 22nd, 2011 at 2:21 pm, Roland said:

    I have challenged the claim that the event damages the issue of states rights.

    The argument for centralized government is that you cannot trust smaller, decentralized governments to do the morally correct thing, so when you can clearly see what is right you are obligated to use the power of the central government to impose it.

    If you cannot see how slavery plays into that, you are beyond idiocy.

11. #211
    On February 22nd, 2011 at 2:26 pm, mondamay said:

    Um, yeah, I get that. I’m asking you why you think it damages the case. Surely, you’re able to give your opinion.

    Because people don’t like slavery, and they tend to conflate slavery, and State’s rights enough already without us helping them out.

    You probably think it’s “lousy” from a PR perspective because simpleton idiots just like you are too intellectually lazy to be honest about the issue.

    PR is always an issue when the public gets a say about things. To deny that the issue of State’s rights has already been damaged because of Southern secession and the decades of rhetoric defending and revising that secession is to deny reality.

12. #212
    On February 22nd, 2011 at 2:31 pm, Virginia Patriot said:

    Thank you for your contribution to the discussion.

    I have no time to refight the last Civil War. The enemies of America are trying to foment the next one.

13. #213
    On February 22nd, 2011 at 2:59 pm, corkie said:

    On February 22nd, 2011 at 2:07 pm, Roland said:

    I am perfectly happy to explore the complexities with people who actually wish to explore ideas, if those complexities are relevant,

    The complexities of this issue are very relevant.

    I pointed out there is a difference between saying the South had a right to not be invaded versus saying the North was within their rights to draft its citizens and spend its taxpayers’ dollars to pursue the war, but you ignore that rather relevant and obvious bit of moral difference because it doesn’t fit your antagonistic game to recognize it.

    I didn’t ignore it, but it certainly doesn’t say much.

    You are a nasty, argumentative jackass, the worst kind of troll.

    Well, shucks. I feel very warmly towards you, too. But I actually think you’re a worse kind of troll.

14. #214
    On February 22nd, 2011 at 3:16 pm, corkie said:

    On February 22nd, 2011 at 2:21 pm, Roland said:

    The argument for centralized government is that you cannot trust smaller, decentralized governments to do the morally correct thing,

    This is a terrible assumption. You should be humiliated for making it.

    There are many arguments for centralized government. Most revolve around increased economic strength.

    so when you can clearly see what is right you are obligated to use the power of the central government to impose it.

    But if a state secedes, then it’s no longer part of the centralized government. So if that centralized government uses its “power” to do what it sees as right to the seceded entity, then that centralized government should also use its power to do what it sees as right to sovereign states – like Morocco. Right?

    If you cannot see how slavery plays into that, you are beyond idiocy.

    Of course I see that slavery plays into that. In fact, I gave you three possible answers to chose from, and slavery plays into each and every answer I provided.

15. #215
    On February 22nd, 2011 at 3:26 pm, corkie said:

    On February 22nd, 2011 at 2:26 pm, mondamay said:

    Because people don’t like slavery, and they tend to conflate slavery, and State’s rights enough already without us helping them out.

    It seems to me that you are the one helping them by refusing to even discuss the issue on a sophisticated level.

    To deny that the issue of State’s rights has already been damaged because of Southern secession and the decades of rhetoric defending and revising that secession is to deny reality.

    I’m not denying that at all.

    I know that some people are unable to think for themselves. They’re unable to think past, Slavery = Bad, therefore anything associated with slavery must also be bad. As I said, Lincoln is associated with slavery so I’m surprised you don’t think he’s bad.

    PR is always an issue when the public gets a say about things

    I’m not surprised that you’re sticking to such a simpleton view of this, but I respect you being honest about it.

16. #216
    On February 22nd, 2011 at 3:48 pm, mondamay said:

    Your repeated references to me as “simpleton” and “idiot” in an effort to convince me explains a lot about your derisive opinion of PR in a country where people vote.

    Good luck with your denial.

    In a world of unicorns and wishes, we might have even been friends… yeah, probably not.

17. #217
    On February 22nd, 2011 at 3:59 pm, Roland said:

    I have no time to refight the last Civil War. The enemies of America are trying to foment the next one.

    Swede and corkie are the ones insisting that bringing it up in a debate about state’s rights is somehow a good idea for those wishing to defend state’s rights.

18. #218
    On February 22nd, 2011 at 4:07 pm, Dave Turson said:

    Robert E. Lee claimed to have left the Union over states’ rights. But his northern brethren did not buy it — they turned the area around his home (Arlington House) into a military cemetery. And surprise, surprise — Lee did not treat the slaves under his charge with tenderness.

19. #219
    On February 22nd, 2011 at 5:10 pm, corkie said:

    On February 22nd, 2011 at 3:48 pm, mondamay said:

    Your repeated references to me as “simpleton” and “idiot” in an effort to convince me explains a lot about your derisive opinion of PR in a country where people vote.

    Yes, it’s important that we, on this thread, make sure we appeal to voters.

    Let’s avoid discussing any sensitive issues in depth since some of the less informed voters might get the wrong impression.

    In a world of unicorns and wishes, we might have even been friends

    That’s your world, brotha, not mine.

20. #220
    On February 22nd, 2011 at 5:12 pm, corkie said:

    On February 22nd, 2011 at 3:59 pm, Roland said:

    Swede and corkie are the ones insisting that bringing it up in a debate about state’s rights is somehow a good idea for those wishing to defend state’s rights.

    You hypocritical jerk. You ignore or badly misrepresent what I’ve said.

21. #221
    On February 22nd, 2011 at 5:13 pm, corkie said:

    On February 22nd, 2011 at 4:07 pm, Dave Turson said:

    Yawn

22. #222
    On February 22nd, 2011 at 5:43 pm, Virginia Patriot said:

    Swede and corkie are the ones insisting that bringing it up in a debate about state’s rights is somehow a good idea for those wishing to defend state’s

    Roland, on that point, I agree with you. Slavery is inextricably entwined with the events of 1861-65. It was wrong and had to end.

    It wasn’t the only cause of the war, but will always trump the others.

23. #223
    On February 22nd, 2011 at 5:47 pm, Dave Turson said:

    Historian Elizabeth Brown Pryor:
    

    When I was reading these letters, I had to keep questioning my own assumptions about Lee: Was he really against slavery and secession as has been claimed for many years? …Lee was considered a hard taskmaster. He also started hiring slaves to other families, sending them away, and breaking up families that had been together on the estate for generations. The slaves resented him, were terrified they would never be freed, and they lost all respect for him. There were many runaways, and at one point several slaves jumped him, claiming they were as free as he. Lee ordered these men to be severely whipped. …

    Yeah, that was a real yawner.

24. #224
    On February 22nd, 2011 at 6:17 pm, corkie said:

    On February 22nd, 2011 at 5:43 pm, Virginia Patriot said:

    Swede and corkie are the ones insisting that bringing it up in a debate about state’s rights is somehow a good idea for those wishing to defend state’s

    Roland, on that point, I agree with you.

    You should be more careful. You agree that I insist that brining up the Civil War in a debate about states’ rights is a good idea?

25. #225
    On February 22nd, 2011 at 6:20 pm, corkie said:

    On February 22nd, 2011 at 5:47 pm, Dave Turson said:

    Yeah, that was a real yawner.

    Sorry, I should admit that I’m actually shocked! Shocked that the general of the confederate army was a staunch slave master.

    Can you now link to a story about the leader of the Manhattan Protect being smart?

26. #226
    On February 22nd, 2011 at 6:21 pm, corkie said:

    Dave Turson, same question for you, or are you too afraid to answer it?

    Which of the following do you believe?

    1. States had the right to secede as long as the reason to secede was not something bad or something that was counter to the Declaration of Independence. Since slavery was something bad and counter to the D of I, then the secession of the southern states was illegal, and therefore war against the southern states was justified.

    2. States had the right to secede, but because the legally seceded states were practicing something which was so heinous (slavery), that war was justified in ending the practice.

    3. States had no right to secede regardless of the reason, therefore war against the south to prevent secession was justified.

27. #227
    On February 22nd, 2011 at 6:28 pm, Dave Turson said:

    On February 22nd, 2011 at 6:20 pm, corkie said:
    Sorry, I should admit that I’m actually shocked! Shocked that the general of the confederate army was a staunch slave master.

    No answers will be given to winding questions from a man who obviously is not a serious student of history.

28. #228
    On February 22nd, 2011 at 10:22 pm, corkie said:

    On February 22nd, 2011 at 6:28 pm, Dave Turson said:

    No answers will be given

    I’m not surprised. You’d rather lose the argument than risk giving an answer to an easy multiple choice question.

    And I’m more of a serious professor of history than a student.

29. #229
    On February 23rd, 2011 at 12:46 am, swede said:

    The argument for centralized government is that you cannot trust smaller, decentralized governments to do the morally correct thing, so when you can clearly see what is right you are obligated to use the power of the central government to impose it.

    Do I really need to point out this is non sequitur and logically absurd? You think this monster central government we now have is using it’s power to impose “what is right” on us?!? D’OH!!

    Roland, If you were in Washington 1800-60 you would be living and working with slave owners. Some 13000 slaves in DC alone. Of the 18 pre war presidents 12 were slave owners, and 8 owned slaves while in office. About half of the congressmen did as well.It was deplorable and disgusting but that’s the way it was.

    US Grant (a former slave owner) said after the war abolition was necessary because the “n***r” population would have overtaken the whites and slaughtered them. No hint he believed slave ownership a moral issue. The “righteous cause” from the north was not as morally pristeen as you imply. I do think Lincoln was genuine though.

    Ironic – He didn’t die because of emancipation. “Sic semper tyrannis”, Death to tyrants. Booth was opposed to slavery. Figure that one. Maybe…it was about sovereignty.

30. #230
    On February 23rd, 2011 at 7:08 am, Roland said:

    You think this monster central government we now have is using it’s power to impose “what is right” on us?!? D’OH!!

    Of course it is not, but you really have not been paying attention at all if you do not realize it is the excuse they are always using.

    They love it when you bring up the Civil War.

    They win. You lose. Erasing slavery wins every moral argument in this field of political battle, hands down and with a grand desert afterward.

    Insisting you are winning the state’s rights argument on what you imagine to be the ‘logic’ of the Civil War entirely misses the point.

    That we have to argue this here is immensely disappointing. The claim from the left is that the right still doesn’t get how inexcusable slavery was.

    You don’t. If you did, you would simply not want to go there in the argument.

    There is a difference between opposing something like slavery and fully understanding just how morally twisted it was.

    And, btw, I am not saying intellectually exploring the complexities of life in Southern America states during the slave era is ‘forbidden’ or anything like that.

    I am saying, once more, that the slavery in the South erases any moral argument in the defense of the Confederacy in the Civil War, including state’s rights.

    If you do not get that, we will never agree.

31. #231
    On February 23rd, 2011 at 7:20 am, Roland said:

    BTW, this argument:

    The “righteous cause” from the north was not as morally pristeen as you imply.

    really ticks me off.

    I have never said the large majority in the North gave a damn about the blacks. I have repeatedly said a vociferous minority in the North, the abolitionists, were a necessary element for the North to go to war.

    And, btw, that is almost always the way it works. Wisdom and morality in our democratic republic does not come from the majority being wise and moral. The majority are always not much distinguishable from a bunch of self-interest, grasping, stupid chattering apes. On balance.

    When the democracy is working well, there is a small smattering of wisdom and morality in the ‘middle’ that tilts elections one way or the other between opposing camps of self-interested animals.

    The abolitionists were vociferously in favor of the war. Squawking about them not having been anywhere near a majority is just showing ignorance of how a democratic republic works.

32. #232
    On February 23rd, 2011 at 10:03 am, corkie said:

    On February 23rd, 2011 at 7:08 am, Roland said:

    I am saying, once more, that the slavery in the South erases any moral argument in the defense of the Confederacy in the Civil War, including state’s rights.

    Yet, amazingly, you refuse to tell us WHY slavery erases a defense of the Confederacy.

    The WHY is an incredibly important aspect of the issue.

    Surely, your argument is strong enough to answer the WHY.

    Did slavery in the South erase any moral argument in the defense of the Confederacy in the Civil War, including state’s rights because:

    1. Slavery was so bad that it made the secession illegal because it wasn’t a good enough reason to secede?

    2. Slavery was so bad that it justified a war against the Confederacy even though the southern states had legally seceded?

33. #233
    On February 23rd, 2011 at 10:13 am, corkie said:

    On February 23rd, 2011 at 7:08 am, Roland said:

    You think this monster central government we now have is using it’s power to impose “what is right” on us?!?

    Of course it is not,

    So I assume that you admit that you should back away from this claim.

    The argument for centralized government is that you cannot trust smaller, decentralized governments to do the morally correct thing

    When the democracy is working well, there is a small smattering of wisdom and morality in the ‘middle’ that tilts elections one way or the other between opposing camps of self-interested animals.

    When democracy is working well???

    Are you claiming that that ‘middle’ always sides with the ‘morally correct’ camp? If not, then it blows away your whole argument for centralized government. What good is a centralized government when it only does the morally correct thing when “democracy is working well”?

34. #234
    On February 23rd, 2011 at 12:10 pm, Roland said:

    If not, then it blows away your whole argument for centralized government.

    How many times have I said how much I am opposed to powerful central government? Yet when I point out that you fools are playing into the hands of the argument they use, which whatever its merits or flaws has been working in the real world, you then expect me to defend their argument. The argument with which I disagree.

    You seem to be an idiot. Is it possible that like the editor who was flabbergasted when Nixon beat McGovern because everyone she knew had voted for McGovern, you simply don’t live in the real world among people who disagree with you from every direction politically so that you can see how arguments work or fail in the real world? You know. Where everyone isn’t super smart and stuff, the way you are.

    The Civil War is a loser in the national debate about state’s rights. If you give a damn about decentralizing government, it is crazy to go there in a discussion of state’s rights on a widely read political blog. If it comes up, you point out it is the extreme case, so it should not apply in general. And then quickly move on.

    If you really cannot see that, further discussion is pointless.

    My original intention was to slap down Thacker and walk away. This thread has turned into exactly what I was warning against.

    Any open minded but politically ignorant young American reading this thread has learned the morality of the Civil War is still being debated by conservatives.

    We lose.

    And, corkie, you really are a dumbass.

35. #235
    On February 23rd, 2011 at 1:08 pm, corkie said:

    On February 23rd, 2011 at 12:10 pm, Roland said:

    How many times have I said how much I am opposed to powerful central government?

    You really are dense.

    You continuously claim that the heinousness of slavery justified using a powerful central government to extinguish it yet you are completely unable to defend the justification for using the powerful central government.

    Do you actually want anyone to take you seriously?

    It’s like someone claiming that they support free speech while being in favor of silencing certain opinions that they consider too heinous – without offering any defense of this position.

    Is it possible that … you simply don’t live in the real world among people who disagree with you from every direction politically

    No, that isn’t possible. Half of those I live among disagree with my political views.

    If it comes up, you point out it is the extreme case, so it should not apply in general.

    Here’s a tip if you’re going to play the PR game on here – have an argument that makes sense. It damages your credibility to be intellectually dishonest in some sort of attempt to appeal to the middle.

    Or are you admitting that you merely want to avoid having the argument on here? If so, then you should have simply typed, “corkie, you’re right, but I was hoping not to admit that on here.” I certainly would have understood and respected that – believe me, I’m quite used to people telling me that I’m right.

    This thread has turned into exactly what I was warning against.

    Then you should definitely reevaluate your approach. Your slap down caused this thread turning out the way it did.

    Any open minded but politically ignorant young American reading this thread has learned the morality of the Civil War is still being debated by conservatives.

    This is exactly why it boggles my mind that you refused to explain your position at the start. If you had done less slapping and provided more honest explanation then the issue would have been concluded on the previous page.

    I continuously asked myself if this was what you were doing but refused to believe that you were that stupid. Now I know that you really are that stupid.

36. #236
    On February 23rd, 2011 at 1:10 pm, corkie said:

    Btw, I believe #2.

37. #237
    On February 23rd, 2011 at 3:24 pm, Roland said:

    Your questions involved the legality of secession. I have no interest in debating that here. I said so. Mondamay also said he was not interested in debating the legalities.

    You ignored us and left that in your questions.

    I do not believe you are so dense you did not understand I was saying slavery was so evil it forfeited what otherwise would have been the South’s natural right to not be invaded, regardless of what the legalities were.

    You were fishing for a fight about the legality of secession.

38. #238
    On February 23rd, 2011 at 3:54 pm, corkie said:

    On February 23rd, 2011 at 3:24 pm, Roland said:

    Your questions involved the legality of secession.

    No, my question doesn’t involved the legality of secession.

    I was double clear when I reiterated the following to mondamay:

    On February 22nd, 2011 at 1:44 pm, corkie said:

    Good grief. I didn’t ask you to defend the Constitutionality of the war. I asked you to state the reason you believe the war was justified.

    Do you honest not understand the difference???

    I’ve made it clear that I’m asking for your opinion. Surely, you’re able to give your opinion.

    You’re being disingenuous.

    You ignored us and left that in your questions.

    Now, you’re lying. I even reworded my question to mondamay like this:

    On February 22nd, 2011 at 1:44 pm, corkie said:

    Which of the following do you believe (by believe I mean – in your opinion)?

    1. States had the right to secede as long as the reason to secede was not something bad or something that was counter to the Declaration of Independence. Since slavery was something bad and counter to the D of I, then the secession of the southern states was illegal, and therefore war against the southern states was justified.

    2. States had the right to secede, but because the legally seceded states were practicing something which was so heinous (slavery), that war was justified in ending the practice.

    3. States had no right to secede regardless of the reason, therefore war against the south to prevent secession was justified.

    I couldn’t be any more clear that I was seeking an opinion – not an interpretation of case law.

    If I asked you your opinion about whether or not citizens should have the right to purchase firearms would that require debating the legalities of the 2nd Amendment? Of course not, and you know it.

    I was saying slavery was so evil it forfeited what otherwise would have been the South’s natural right to not be invaded, regardless of what the legalities were.

    So, then you should simply man-up and explain why you think it’s ok to invade one sovereign entity (or an entity that may be sovereign) in order to discontinue the practice of slavery yet it’s not ok to invade a different sovereign entity in order to discontinue the practice of slavery.

    You were fishing for a fight about the legality of secession.

    I wasn’t fishing for that at all, and you’re an idiot for claiming I was.

    I simply wanted to know how how consistent your own beliefs were. For all you know, I abhor slavery to the extent that I was urging an invasion of Morocco for most of my life and simply wanted to know why you weren’t doing the same.

    Next time, read carefully and think before you comment.

39. #239
    On February 23rd, 2011 at 4:31 pm, Roland said:

    So, then you should simply man-up and explain why you think it’s ok to invade one sovereign entity (or an entity that may be sovereign) in order to discontinue the practice of slavery yet it’s not ok to invade a different sovereign entity in order to discontinue the practice of slavery.

    The South had no natural right to expect to not be invaded. Neither did Morocco. Free societies have the natural right to invade and conquer tyrannies, if they deem it wise. All tyrannies are a natural threat to free people.

    That does not mean we have an obligation to invade them, and it does not mean our government has a right to draft us and tax us to invade them.

    I already explained that to you in #175.

    That is a huge leap there, Corkie. Morocco is across the ocean. They are Muslims. English is not their language.

    Furthermore, I am not arguing the North should have drafted young men and spent money from the public treasury to free the slaves, although there is a much better argument for that war than for the one you are suggesting in Morocco.

    I am arguing the Confederacy had no natural right to not be invaded and crushed (slavery forfeited that), not that the North had an obligation to do so.

    Next time, read carefully and think before you comment.

40. #240
    On February 23rd, 2011 at 7:14 pm, corkie said:

    Free societies have the natural right to invade and conquer tyrannies, if they deem it wise.

    This is the first time you’ve made this claim.

    Welcome to intellectual honesty. Sorry for the inconvenience.

41. #241
    On February 23rd, 2011 at 9:34 pm, Roland said:

    Welcome to intellectual honesty.

    So you lecture me about intellectual honesty.

    You are a funny guy.

42. #242
    On February 24th, 2011 at 3:29 am, corkie said:

    On February 23rd, 2011 at 9:34 pm, Roland said:

    So you lecture me about intellectual honesty.

    Yes, you didn’t come clean until this thread was running off the main page.

43. #243
    On February 24th, 2011 at 7:45 am, Roland said:

    Yes, you didn’t come clean until this thread was running off the main page.

    “Come clean?” You are the one who hides in the shadows, playing your word games.

    You snipe and manipulate and twist what people say when they are putting it out there, and then you accuse them of a lack of intellectual honesty?

    You’re an idiot who doesn’t even realize what you’re doing, or you’re lowlife slime. Probably both.

    Haven’t you ever figured out Socrates was an intellectually dishonest, manipulative assh*le?

    And, btw, just in case you really are the idiot you are pretending to be, I am flabbergasted you regarded that statement as “coming clean.” I was stating something that should be self-evident to any decent human being. If people have the right to rebel against tyranny, the free people certainly have the natural right to overthrow other tyrannies they regard as dangerous to their safety and freedom. Like, duh.

    I was just stating the obvious and self-evident in an exasperated wrap up of the thread.

44. #244
    On February 24th, 2011 at 11:04 am, corkie said:

    On February 24th, 2011 at 7:45 am, Roland said:

    You are the one who hides in the shadows, playing your word games.

    I read through the threads and comment when something is interesting. Only a doofus, or paranoid lunatic, would consider that hiding in the shadows.

    You snipe and manipulate and twist what people say when they are putting it out there,

    I don’t manipulate or twist anything. Blowhards like you usually don’t like getting asked difficult questions.

    then you accuse them of a lack of intellectual honesty?

    No, I accuse you of intellectual dishonestly. And you probably would admit that you weren’t being intellectually honest on this thread.

    I was stating something that should be self-evident to any decent human being.

    Not everyone would define the Confederacy as tyrannical, you idiot. Not everyone believes that a sovereign nation has the right to invade another sovereign nation to end a practice such as slavery. Can you honestly say that over 80% of the population would have agreed that the United States had the right to invade Morocco prior to 2003?

    So when you stated…

    “Free societies have the natural right to invade and conquer tyrannies, if they deem it wise”

    ….I gave you a little leeway and assumed that you simply meant that ‘Free societies have the natural right to invade and conquer governments that allow slavery, if they deem it wise.’

    Only a dishonest idiot would now attempt to claim that such a statement is “self-evident.”

    I was just stating the obvious and self-evident in an exasperated wrap up of the thread.

    Well, you blew it. You failed to state the obvious and self-evident. Just like you blew this entire thread. I hope you’re proud of yourself.

45. #245
    On February 24th, 2011 at 12:25 pm, Roland said:

    And you probably would admit that you weren’t being intellectually honest on this thread.

    I was being completely intellectually honest and totally consistent in this thread.

    You, on the other hand, even after being told we did not wish to engage you in a debate about the legality of secession, continued to demand we respond to your questions about the legality of secession, completely ignoring our replies that the discussion was about morality, not legality.

    Not everyone would define the Confederacy as tyrannical, you idiot.

    Uh, yes, of course there are many who would not. That is why I did not go there until what I thought was the end of this thread. It would have opened up a whole new debate that had nothing to do with the question of whether or not the South’s rights were being violated by the invasion from the North.

    Slavery was sufficient to negate their natural right not to be invaded. How many times did I write that? Are you blind? It does not matter if you regard them as a tyranny or not, but that would certainly seal the deal.

    Only a dishonest idiot would now attempt to claim that such a statement is “self-evident.”

    No. Someone who hasn’t got your idiotic world view would recognize it.

    BTW, idiot, I did not “blow the thread.” It would have blown the thread even worse to have allowed the statements Thacker and Swede made to stand uncontested.

    Then the open minded, politically ignorant young reader would have figured that’s the way all of us on the right think.

    You did not bother to read what Mondamay and I were writing. You were just looking for a fight.

    You are a troll, and you have been outed.

46. #246
    On February 24th, 2011 at 6:04 pm, corkie said:

    On February 24th, 2011 at 12:25 pm, Roland said:

    I was being completely intellectually honest and totally consistent in this thread.

    No, you weren’t.

    You…continued to demand we respond to your questions about the legality of secession,

    1. I asked a question. You could have simply ignored it instead of being caustic.

    2. I NEVER asked you to comment on the legality of secession and made that clear repeated. How can you make such a statement while you’re pretending to be intellectually honest?

    Slavery was sufficient to negate their natural right not to be invaded.

    That doesn’t mean that slavery is sufficient to label them tyrannical. I’m seriously starting to wonder if you suffer from dementia.

    It does not matter if you regard them as a tyranny or not

    You were the one that stated, “Free societies have the natural right to invade and conquer tyrannies, if they deem it wise” and then claimed that this statement self-evidently applies to slavery.

    that would certainly seal the deal.

    Really, because as I said:

    “Not everyone believes that a sovereign nation has the right to invade another sovereign nation to end a practice such as slavery. Can you honestly say that over 80% of the population would have agreed that the United States had the right to invade Morocco prior to 2003?”

    It would have blown the thread even worse to have allowed the statements Thacker and Swede made to stand uncontested.

    No, old man. You made it much, much worse that it would have otherwise been.

    You did not bother to read what Mondamay and I were writing.

    Yes, I did. You were the one that didn’t bother to read what I was writing, and you’re still not.

    Smarten up, old man.