Wrong again. Man, you have a real knack for being totally mistaken. I didn't premise my conclusion on anything. I just laid it down. My comments--they were not "attacks--on DiLorenzo's Lincoln fetish were (in your own words)gratuitious. And if you wanted to reach for a "premise" for not rebutting DiLorenzo, it would have to be the "dupe" comment, which was not a comment on DiLorenzo, but on his adoring fans.
You are a perfect example of that. All I have done is post ridiculously argumentative posts worded in such a way as to get a rise out of you, and you are so intent on being right, on proving your point, that you are blind to the silliness of it. You say it should be disregarded, but you can't bring yourself to disregard it.
I didn't call DiLorenzo an ass. I didn't call him a racist. I didn't call him a pseudo historian, a hack, an amateur, a lightweight, a liar. I didn't call him any of those things. I didn't say he still lives at home with his mother. I didn't say he is to the left of Ralph Nader. I said he's got a Lincoln fetish.
Here's a list of his articles on LewRockwell.com:
Dishonest Abe
The Lincolnians were inside traders.
1-0 me.
Statism, Imperialism, Hubris
Thomas DiLorenzo on Irving "the Godfather" Kristol's neocon manifesto.
You would think not, but by the middle of the article, "Like the neocon Lincoln idolaters..." etc etc.
That's 2-0 me.
The GOP-Liberian Connection
Lincoln started it, with the plan to deport American blacks to Africa.
3-0 me.
Supreme Dictators
Thanks, as a happy Woodrow Wilson explained, to Lincoln.
4-0.
The Political Economy of World Domination
Thomas DiLorenzo on the neocons and their strange, Eastern European philosophy.
I almost thought the shutout was beat, until: "That’s why they go on and on about what it takes to be a "great statesman" and constantly invoke their two most adored heroes, Lincoln ..."
5-0.
Leo Lincoln
No wonder neocons love Abe, says Thomas DiLorenzo.
6-0.
States Rights vs. Tyranny
And tyrannical central banking.
"after Lincoln’s war the Supreme Court "became the sole and final arbiter of constitutional controversies. No longer could a Jefferson arise"
7-0
Six Myths About Lincoln
Thomas DiLorenzo explodes them.
8-0
The 'Buy America' Myth
The South, unlike Lincoln and the Buchananites, was right on tariffs, says Thomas DiLorenzo.
9-0
Northern States Rights
Thomas DiLorenzo on Straussian lies about America.
10-0
Lincoln's Spectacular Lie
That the central government created the states.
11-0
Protectionism Means Hostilities
As in 1861.
12-0
What Lincoln's Army Did to the Indians
No wonder the neocons love General Sherman.
13-0
The Lincolnian Graveyard
Neocons are whistling past it, says Thomas J. DiLorenzo.
14-0
Lincolnites Love Bush
Uh oh.
15-0
Lincoln: Slavery A-OK
Thomas DiLorenzo on the Great Emancipator's real 13th amendment.
16-0
Anti-Lincoln Gangs of New York
Some effects of Lincoln's military slavery.
17-0
I am going to stop there. But there are at least another DOZEN articles listed that have Lincoln in the title. We can safely assume that he worked old Abe into the others as well.
The first 17 all dealt directly or indirectly with Lincoln. OK? So, once again, you are totally wrong. Surprise surprise. So, is saying Lorenzo is obsessed with Lincoln ad hominem? Hardly. More like an understatement. You through yet, or you want some more?
Not at all. You, however, do have a strong, albeit poorly exercised and transparent, inclination towards ex post facto equivocation as a means of escaping the implications of your hastily asserted and fallacious claims from previous posts.
I didn't premise my conclusion on anything. I just laid it down.
In that case, your conclusion would be entirely gratuitous and therefore dismissable as an unsubstantiated case of vocal flatulence on your part. So either way - be it by faulty premise or lack of any premise to begin with - your argument is without merit. If you prefer the second route to the first as your official interpretation it is fine with me as result is still the same.
You are a perfect example of that.
So once again you indulge in attacks upon me over substance. I guess you can't teach a dumb dog new tricks after all.
All I have done is post ridiculously argumentative posts worded in such a way as to get a rise out of you
Now that's odd. I have yet to experience any anger or frustration towards you - the typical characteristics of what one would define as a "rise" of the nature you describe. I have found great amusement, by contrast, in observing you dance in circles to explain away what was in reality an unsophisticated shooting off of your mouth from the very beginning. It's been a great logical exercise and to that end I thank you.
I am going to stop there. But there are at least another DOZEN articles listed that have Lincoln in the title. We can safely assume that he worked old Abe into the others as well. The first 17 all dealt directly or indirectly with Lincoln. OK? So, once again, you are totally wrong.
So 17 short editorials on Lincoln surpasses the contents of 10 full length published books on entirely different subjects? Curious.