Rob's House

Food for thought: http://bearingarms.com/can-gay-couples-open-carry-ar-15s-washington-dc-result-obergefell/

Condolences to his family. And thanks to Mr. Info for keeping us in the loop.

That is the point. I never claimed I was trying to "hoe" any new ground. I said from the beginning my point was a simple one. You're the one who keeps building rows of straw men and throwing them at an argument you are now not only agreeing with, but claiming everyone's known since the second grade. The point I was initially making was that symbols of the confederacy are symbols of more than just slavery and racism. That was met with simplistic notions that the war was fought over slavery and thus symbols of the confederacy are also about slavery. I made a point, that you seemed to grasp, two or three days ago. Them you jump on Max Fischer's coattails AFTER he understood the point I was trying to make - that although slavery was the issue that precipitated the war it was not the cause for which the South fought. I have yet to understand what Eastern TN or anything else you've brought up has to do with it, or how I'm coming from a weakened position. I've stayed consistent and on point the whole time. Your misunderstanding of and subsequent extrapolation of a simple and relatively innocuous statement is not my responsibility. I'm still at a loss for what it is you're arguing.

Your logic and comprehension is pathetic. How you derive your conclusion from that sentence is beyond me. You've not raised pertinent questions. You've thrown out straw men and gone down tangents in an attempt to obfuscate when the point I've made is painfully clear to anyone who's not trying really hard not to get it. I can only assume you feel a need to defend your image of "honest Abe" and his righteous war to end slavery because it gives you comfort, but it's bull ****. I hate to burst your bubble but that story about George Washington and the cherry tree...that's not real either. If you can explain to me how the E TN situation or any of your other tangents is evidence that Lincoln's primary objective WHEN HE INVADED was the abolition of slavery, or that the primary reason for the confederate resistance to that invasion was to defend slavery then I'll be happy to address that. But I'll not waste time chasing you down irrelevant rabbit holes. And do you really think if the south agreed to end slavery after secession but before the war that Lincoln would have chosen not to invade? Because if you're not saying that then I'm not sure what your point is.

I said no such ****. I said Lincoln's primary objective when he invaded the south was preservation of the union, which is almost universally accepted by serious people. You're just whining because my use of the word empire made your pu$$y hurt.

Interesting. I didn't know that tidbit about E TN. It's still tangential because the US government was a pact among the states, the state government was not a pact among the counties, and even if it were all that would mean is that TN was hypocritical. Your argument was a straw man because I never argued that secession was Lincoln's goal. And your rationalization of your ad hominem attack is flimsy. You marginalize a group (whose positions I'm not specifically familiar with, but which I'm certain you don't know or understand), then you associate me with them to draw the conclusion that my position must be flawed by association. Instead of attacking the substance of my argument you attack the person making it toinvalidate it. You should work on self-awareness. Your version of events is not as obvious or simple as it seems to you. The only reason the revisionist union-written mythology on the topic seems unquestionable to you is because it's what you grew up thinking and what you were told by parents and teachers - basically everyone you trusted to know and teach you the ways of the world. The same reason people believe so strongly in the centuries old mythology of their invisible man in the sky that they'll kill and die over it.

Again, someone throwing up a straw man. Only to your credit, I don't think you're trying to do so, I think you honestly don't get the point so I'll give a brief explanation, hopefully for the last time. Lincoln didn't want secession, but once it happened he could either allow it to happen or he could could take military action to stop it. If you think he went to war primarily to end slavery rather than preserve the union (empire) then, sorry for being blunt, but you're a !@#$ing fool, and few of any respected historians of any persuasion agree with you. And your bit about counties that voted against secession would only be relevant if those counties moved to separate from their states and Davis sent troops in to prevent that. Only even then the analogy fails because state governments were fundamentally different from the federal government. Either way, it's tangential and if you want to go down that rabbit hole you can do it alone. Edit: And to Max Fischer I'd like you to take note of the bolded part. THAT is what an ad hominem attack looks like. You guys should pay me tuition.

I'd rather have have House call me an idiot and save my life than have Cameron hold my hand and cry while I die.

"Because of" doesn't mean the same thing. That's the point. Let me give you a completely different scenario where a fight wasn't about something that led to it happening. A guy beat up two much younger kids. Because of that, I go and tell him to knock it off . While I'm doing that, one of the kids he beat up (confident because he's got back now) charges him, 2 of my friends take it as their cue and charge him too, throw him up against the house, and hit him a few times before I can pull them off. The next day he calls on the phone and claims I jumped him (truth be told I saved him from a pretty severe ass whoopin, but I digress). He shows up at my house with all his boys and we went out in the street and fought. Now the fight wouldn't have happened if he hadn't beaten up those kids. And the fight happened because of those kids. But those kids aren't what the fight was about. We weren't fighting over those kids; he was fighting because he [erroneously] thought he had been jumped, and I was fighting because I wasn't going to let that mother!@#$er roll up on my house. Point being, what caused the fight isn't always what the fight itself is about.

I specifically explained the logical flaw in your argument without regard to what a simple minded pissant you appear to be. And forgive me if I doubt your ability to comprehend anything more nuanced than See Spot Run. And I doubt any historian of any persuasion would endorse the sorry excuse for logic tossed out.

You weren't right. You were painfully simplistic. The inability to distinguish between the cause of secession, the key issue that led to the war, and the cause of the war, Lincoln's desire to preserve his empire, is the flaw. But that's been discussed ad nausea in this thread so if you want to learn more about it the info's there. Your post said that because without slavery there wouldn't have been a war and therefore the war was about slavery. I pointed out the logical fallacy in that deduction.

No **** Sherlock. We've been over all this.

If you apply your own philosophy to yourself you should, at a minimum, have your drivers license revoked. I'm sure you've changed radio stations while driving before. What if a kid ran out in the road and got killed so you could listen to Wilso Philips?

It wasn't the brevity, but rather the irrelevance of your post that stood out. I could just as easily say no 9/11 = no Iraq war. Does that mean the Iraq war was fought over 9/11?

Eh, !@#$ you too, buddy.

That doesn't address how your example illustrated this point at all. And I'd be shocked if you could accurately describe any position I've taken that is self-evidently outrageous. And the "self-evident" bit sounds like a cop out because you can't articulate a reasonable argument to support that assertion.

Does this mean we can start calling douche bags faggots again?

The line of conversation I took issue with was the one surrounding this post: It seems to imply that Lincoln's illegal actions were done for humanitarian reasons. I strongly disagree with that. But I've said what I have to say on that issue

I suppose you did. I still see that as at odds with your argument about Lincoln's great moral crusade for equality, but we've beat that horse to death.

I wouldn't bet on it. Look at what happened to race relations after the first black president was elected. It will make it more amusing when they claim an ongoing struggle for equal rights though.

Or by the lack of substantive argument by the arrogant lefties whose key talking point is to call the opposition racist and/or outrageous. I'm curious what I've said that's outrageous. I'm also still curious what would have been different about your friend buying your shotgun from a retailer. Don't worry, I'm not expecting substantive answers to either. Nice to see you walking that one back. I'm glad you see it my way ... Now. So it's your position that the south invaded the north? I could also argue that upon secession the union no longer had claim to the land on which the outpost sits. But that wasn't really my point.

We can split hairs all we want, but unless you're arguing that the south invaded the north and not vice versa I think my analogy works. Yet sadly, none of the union fanboys can come up with anything more substantive than this.

Project much?

Way to miss the point.

His house