Russia is considering using bitcoin as an official currency. The future is now lads.

I have long since peered into it, @POOHEAD189. It has gotten to the point I refer people to this, because it includes a myriad of references and events as an aggregate post. As an addition, it might not be gospel, but if even eighty percent is accurate, that is closer to truth.

It is the same reason I do not even bother striking first against the blade of "racist", "Islamophobe" and "homophobe", among the other labels. I believe it is high time the burden of proof be put on the accusing party, not that you specifically are them in this case, but in general. No one can point to the infamous party switch and there's more to suggest no such thing happened. Just saying it aloud should help indicate as to why that is unlikely.

<Snipped quote by Andreyich>

I can do you one better than that.

(but it's okay, because it wasn't real socialism)

<Snipped quote by Smash>
As is potential plagiarism? At a cursory level, your following post carries an uncanny amount of word-for-word copies and was posted within minutes of the other, as well as not even sourced to the topic it appears to be copied from. Now, I grant that you might actually be this author, as this is the internet so stranger things have happened, but you have truly brought this scrutiny on yourself. Now, I am going to assume you are just using it as reference for your argument, regardless, if you want the short answer as you so "wittily" demanded, here it is.

No one then, just as today, is innocent. You cannot just proclaim "The Confederacy was irredeemably evil because of slavery!" and ignore that many Northerners were tolerant of the practice even if they disagreed, still harboring racism even if they did not partake in actual slavery. Likewise, one cannot say "The Union was the moral high ground!" because as many of the examples in this very topic have proven, that is not the honest case. It is further dishonest to say, "Well, that's out of context for Abraham Lincoln." then turn heel and point the accusing finger at Robert E. Lee; our point was to show that and demonstrate you cannot have both, lest you now have a double standard in place. Realistically, one of these two men was assassinated and already had the morally superior winds in his sails. It takes no detective to realize why one is suddenly exalted.

One can witness this surge of support mirrored more recently with the John F. Kennedy assassination and the later attempt on Ronald Reagan. People flocked to their cause, even if they were not wholly convinced. It galvanized their ideals and made them, in many respects, heroes of history. When people remember fondly great Presidents of the United States, the other usual candidates are Washington, Jefferson, and Roosevelt.

I speak for no one but myself, but my personal message in all of this is that it is foolish to some how attribute the entire weight of a historical event, one started long before them, on the weight of one man and the faction he reluctantly served. The preservation of history is significantly more important than any loud, irate message the social justice minority will ever bring to bear. Progression is essential, but you cannot make progress in this realm by using egress. It represents nothing of the will of the people by and large and serves nothing but a cause that is the embodiment of recency.

I have long since peered into it, @POOHEAD189. It has gotten to the point I refer people to this, because it includes a myriad of references and events as an aggregate post. As an addition, it might not be gospel, but if even eighty percent is accurate, that is closer to truth.

It is the same reason I do not even bother striking first against the blade of "racist", "Islamophobe" and "homophobe", among the other labels. I believe it is high time the burden of proof be put on the accusing party, not that you specifically are them in this case, but in general. No one can point to the infamous party switch and there's more to suggest no such thing happened. Just saying it aloud should help indicate as to why that is unlikely.

<Snipped quote by The Harbinger of Ferocity>

lmao like I'm gonna read all that.

VERY quickly skimming your post, between all the purple prose and self fellating, I think your saying that the quote "Brevity is the soul of wit" is something I'm trying to take credit for which is uh...

lol
<Snipped quote by The Harbinger of Ferocity>

I think the fact that you're unironically quoting r/The_Donald as a source is one of the biggest signs that you're not arguing in good faith.

People anxious to portray Abraham Lincoln as a racist quote with gusto a portion of his remarks during the fourth Lincoln-Douglas debate at Charleston, Illinois, on September 18, 1858, where he said:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races — that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

There it is, plain as day. Lincoln asserts that “there is a physical difference” between whites and blacks that he believes “will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality,” and, given that fact, he is “in favor” of assigning “the superior position … to the white race.” (By the way, Harold Holzer’s edition of the debates notes no difference between the accounts of these remarks offered by the Democratic Chicago Times or the Republican Chicago Tribune.)

<Snipped quote by Smash>

He was saying your long wall of text was obvious plagiarism, because it was. I like how you also ignored almost everything that blows you out just so you can take a jab at a subreddit.

@Smash You wouldn't know how you got blown out because you didn't even read his post. I can see that thinking isn't your strong suit but surely reading can't be that difficult?

@Smash Appears to be that the Confederate States of America was pure evil, Lincoln was pure evil, and Confederate monuments are monuments to evil. Perhaps you tried to argue that a few other things were evil too.

I think the fact that you're unironically quoting r/The_Donald as a source is one of the biggest signs that you're not arguing in good faith.

And this is why I don't write huge ass screeds, because it's actually super easy to get even one or two sentences confused!

<Snipped quote by Smash>

Just plagiarizes them

<Snipped quote by Smash>

One should only quote reputable sources, you know, like MSNBC.

<Snipped quote by mdk>

I would love for you to roll up some of your own news sources for us, or else your argument is kind of crippled at the gate man.

<Snipped quote by Smash>

BBC. I don't know why people keep asking this -- wait, shit, you said you don't read stuff, nm.

<Snipped quote by j8cob>

What is my argument?

E: And I haven't resorted to insults, surely your opinion isn't so overtly convoluted that you can't express it in a single paragraph right? Of course, those with nothing to say always resort to insults first.