And this is what I woke up to this morning...

[Yssup Rider]

Don’t forget the Alamo!

[Hotrod511]

Originally Posted by Wakeup

Why would you[sic] think that I[sic] think that?

Well I didn't see were you edited the post so I assume its ok to call the women in here whores

post number 30 by SC

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by friendly fred

I object to your characterization of my comments as hypocrisy. I merely pointed out the hatefulness of the left, with the intention of pointing out to them how hateful they are when pointing out the same behavior in others.
My point was that each side only sees the hatefulness in the other side, never in their own stands, boycotts, marches, etc. Politics has become about "winning", not doing what is right. Both parties are guilty.

When the left is hateful towards the right in a sanctimonious manner I do not believe they see the irony in their actions, considering their viciousness and certitude that they are morally upstanding compared to the right.
I agree, they are blind. As I believe the extremists on the right are. And I think the dialogue has been coopted by the extremes on both sides, for the most part.

Look, I wish that a great President was a better man, but Trump is all the Republicans have right now to stop the extreme liberal bulldozer destroying us. Without Trump leading the Republicans to victory against Hillary we would be on the way to an extremely liberal Supreme Court leading us to become a failure like Venezuela.
You never have, and never will, see me say "I wish the Psychopathic Lying Clinton won." No, that would indeed have been worst. But that does not mean I like Trump, think he should be usurped (at least not based upon what we know to date), nor agree with the RWWs out there. Overall I am more Republican than Democrat, but not the kind of Reps that seem to be driving the train now.


You are an intelligent man. What else can we do? This isn't like a corporation where we can admit we fucked up and decide who the next President is going to be. We take what we can get, though I wouldn't mind Pence at all.
That I agree with. We try to survive until the 2020 election and then I hope we have at least 1, preferably 2, options that are better than either we had in 2016.

For 60 years we have played nice with the liberal left and they have steamrolled the USA's conservatives on every social issue.
Here is where you and I likely disagree. I tend to agree with the Libertarians on most social issues, and the Reps on most fiscal ones. Unfortunately that combination is generally not welcome in any of the party hierarchies these days.
We need Trump to play hardball and shove shit into the face of the extreme liberals. We cannot afford to be nice anymore.

The problem is he has gone far beyond that. He not only does things, he feels empowered to do them far too often with executive orders and that is as wrong for him as it was for Obama--more of the hypocrisy of both parties. He has also turned reasonable actions into unreasonable ones, often because he refuses to think through the implications--his poorly thought out trade war actions (can't call it a "strategy"), his "guilty until proven innocent" claims against people with US birth certificates, his ridiculous statements that peaceful kneeling cannot be respectful when it has been a sign of respect for centuries, and many others. If he would take measured steps to undo some of the LWW policies, and did it without feeling the need to throw more insults than intelligence, I would support him far more. But he is fixated on the Cult of Trump every bit as much as Stalin, Mussolini, etc. In the long term he is alienating the middle, and the long term result will be to undermine many of the changes the Reps should be pushing for. Combine that with his "Ready, Fire, Aim" mentality, and he is a loser.

[Sistine Chapel]

Hey poster that calls himself Hotrod... what are women who sell their bodies for sex called?

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by friendly fred

I believe the Native Americans have been repaid in full with their mass reservations and ample aid through the years.

That statement shows complete ignorance of the reality of American history WRT Native Am. "treaties", often "voluntarily" agreed to by a military blockade that gave two choices: genocide by starvation, or "voluntarily" sign to give most the land away for IOUs the gov't never fulfilled.

Many of the treaties were rejected by the legitimate tribal authorities, but the BIA found one NA who could be paid some money to sign an "agreement" to give up lands and fishing rights that were not his to give--sometimes not even someone from the tribe supposedly "voluntarily" making the concessions.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Don't forget syphilis and tobacco.

No, wouldn't want to forget either of those.

Tobacco, not forced on anyone in the Old World, but one of the excuses some Europeans used for plantations and slavery.

Syphilis, often contracted when Europeans raped NA women.

Thanks for bringing them up so we don't forget.

[lustylad]

Methinks Old-T has more NA blood than Fauxcahontas Warren does!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Don’t forget the Alamo!

Who could forget how Native Americans bayoneted Yankee settlers fighting to free themselves from the dictatorial rule of Santa Anna bayoneted many Yankee settlers after they surrendered.

Originally Posted by Old-T

No, wouldn't want to forget either of those.

Tobacco, not forced on anyone in the Old World, but one of the excuses some Europeans used for plantations and slavery. Slavery in the Americas predates the arrival of Europeans. The Aztecs sacrificed and ate their slaves. Slavery and cannibalism was also common among North America's Northeastern and Southeastern tribes, the Black Pawnee on the plains and the Karankawa that lived around Galveston. Slavery continued among tribes in the American Southwest after the Civil War.

Syphilis, often contracted when Europeans raped NA women.It was quite common for Native Americans to gift the pleasures of their women folk to visitors to encourage amity and trade.

Thanks for bringing them up so we don't forget. You're very welcome.

[Old-T]

You post this script over and over. As with other things you think telling quarter-truths often enough will give credibility to them.

By your logic, a woman who agrees to sex once means she--and the rest of her kin--can no longer claim to be raped. You casually absolve Pizzaro, Cortez, Onante, and others of any blame by tossing out a red herring.

In the same way, you absolve--no, you ignore--the cotton, tobacco, etc. Plantations because "others had slaves".

Oh, and those wonderful traitorous Texans, those settlers did nothing to steal land from those who had it before, did they?

Every historical "reality" you put forth is seen with very biased filters looking to justify the antebellum South, slavery and all. It comes through over and over.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Methinks Old-T has more NA blood than Fauxcahontas Warren does!

Think whatever you wish. I have never claimed any preferential treatment here because of my ethnicity. Nor have I claimed any of my arguments are more correct because of my ethnicity.

So why do you care what it is?

And other than a wild guess, why do you think you have any clue?

IB thought he knew, guessed, and was wrong. I suspect that would be true of others here who tried too.

[dilbert firestorm]

what's with [sic] brackets?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

[You post this script over and over. As with other things you think telling quarter-truths often enough will give credibility to them. Everything I posted was 100% factual, and you know it.

By your logic, a woman who agrees to sex once means she--and the rest of her kin--can no longer claim to be raped. It's not my logic, per se. It is a well documented historical fact that it was a Native American custom for native women to be gifted to traders and emissaries. You casually absolve Pizzaro, Cortez, Onante, and others of any blame by tossing out a red herring. It's a well documented fact that there were more Native Americans in Cortez's entourage than Europeans. Imagine what would have happened to Pizzaro if Atahualpa's own people hadn't already been in revolt. And Onante's excesses were matched by Popé's at a later date.

In the same way, you absolve--no, you ignore--the cotton, tobacco, etc. Plantations because "others had slaves". Syphilis and tobacco are still killing people, and, as you pointed out, the Native Americans didn't have to take those blankets in trade.

Oh, and those wonderful traitorous Texans, those settlers did nothing to steal land from those who had it before, did they? The Yankees were invited to settle in Texas to set up a buffer against -- guess who? The Comanche. How many times did that happen? How many times did one tribe seek help from Europeans in their fights against another tribe?


Every historical "reality" you put forth is seen with very biased filters looking to justify the antebellum South, slavery and all. It comes through over and over. The first instances of slavery are documented in Egypt, North Africa, not in the American South. Slavery in the Americas preexisted Europeans in the Americas. Those are the facts. Those who seek to put all of the evils stemming from the ancient institution of slavery on a small group of American Southerners who lived between the years 1775 and 1865 are the ones wearing biased filters.

.

[Austin Ellen]

Seriously Yussup, you don't know??? Perhaps if you looked it up -- you could get some dates. On the other hand, perhaps not.

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

How do you define “hussy?”

[Hotrod511]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

what's with [sic] brackets?

must be wake up's way of giving us grammar lessons, google it

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Sistine Chapel

Hey poster that calls himself Hotrod... what are women who sell their bodies for sex called?

Wives?