Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
You make a lot of stupid assumptions carpetbagger. When someone says they fly an Confederate flag, I don't know what they are flying since I know better and many people I hang around also know better. Now you know what you think (and you were wrong) when you hear someone say the same thing.
When did we start talking about the Stars and Stripes you carpetbagging subject changer?
If you can't see the relevence of discrediting (or telling it like it is) CNN with some of their reporting on the Tea Party I can't tell you very much. You were clever in a way when you implied that the BFONV represented the Tea Party without actually saying it. That way you can throw shit without really getting your hands dirty. Kind of chickenshit if you ask me. So you're a son of a bog. Are you proud of all the death and maiming caused by the IRA? Are you proud of Teddy Kennedy? Care to fess up to alcoholism? You make a lot of implications about Southern people, there are a lot of stereotypes about the Irish you know. Can you take it?
On numbers, how many slaves do you think there were? Are you referring to those long reputed numbers about 100 million Africans thrown over the side on the way to North America? So much Barbra Streisand! Now slavery existed in the U.S. for about 90 years or from the creation of the country (signing of the Constitution) to the end of the Confederacy. Before that slavery existed under English, Dutch, Spanish, and French law. So how many slaves do you think were killed (not died, because everyone eventually dies), but killed by murder, abuse, and neglect? Apparently you think it is millions. At the end of slavery there were 4 million slaves. We know this from the census records. The slaves had to be counted in order to create new Congressional seats. Now slaves were property and were worth money. No slaver owner is going to kill his slaves for fun as that cost money. A free man can be killed for no reason and without cost but a slave is dollars in your pocket. If a slave was killed it was for a reason. It is mathematically highly improbable to kill millions of slaves, It is financially impossible to do it. You are an idiot for entertaining the idea.
When I was growing up we had a pig that thought he was a dog. He chased cars and prowled the fields with the dogs. You can think you're a conservative but that don't make it so.
I don't agree that the flag in question is that of traitors. It is the flag of the side that lost the civil war.
On a side note.
A person from Kansas calling someone a carpetbagger. That's a joke.
Which brings to mind another joke.
Lone Ranger: "Surrounded by 10,000 Indians. We're up shit creek without a paddle Tonto." Tonto: "What do you mean "we", Kemosabe?"
You sound like you are ashamed (at least for the purposes of your post) you live in what was part of the union then. Where you were born is out of your control. Where you live your adult life is within your control. After 20 years in MN, I've been in Texas for 38. I decided where I want to live. I don't rely on an accident of birth.
One thing I've noticed is the difference the way the Civil War is looked at. It's a much bigger deal in the South. Up North it's no big deal, it's something we studied in school. Until something brings it to the forefront of the news.
I believe it's a horrible chapter in our history ... Growing pains that should have strengthened out nation but left a rift between states that still exists in the addled minds of a small segment of dipshits.
My family arrived here during those years and were lucky to make their way down to Texas.
But like the thumpers, the Johnny Rebs are forever frustrated with their Palm Harbor lives and live on hatred. is it the a lack of education, upbringing, overreaching religious institutions? Or just that the southern states are more suited for growing assholes?
Regardless, I believe those who still fight the Civil War are small minded and pissed off about their lack of self-motivation.
Your selective counting of slave deaths confirms that you are a fucking idiot.
Those were the numbers that were BROUGHT to America. That is NOT the number that were held as slaves.
They had children, generation after generation from 1619 to 1865 in the US. 246 years. Their population grew. There were a lot more than a million by the time the Civil War ended.
How many of them died early due to neglect - just like all those in Communist labor camps?
How many slaves that should have lived to 60 years of age died at, say, 40-something due to a typhus outbreak or flu outbreak from being in cramped, filthy slave quarters?
How many died prematurely in their 40s and 50s - but looked like they were in their 70s - from overwork and poor nutrition?
The Russians and Chinese didn't operate gas chambers the way the Nazis did. Some were shot outright for being dissidents. But most were sent to "re-education" camps. Some came back home, but many/most were just worked, abused, and neglected while prisoners for years until they died. Kind of like North Korea today.
If the average lifespan of an inmate of a Chinese labor camp or Soviet gulag was 10 years shorter than the average lifespan of a Chinese or Russian who was NOT imprisoned, you count those interned people as part of the 20 million dead, right?
Well, if you found out that the average lifespan of an American slave in the South was 5 or 10 years SHORTER than the average lifespan of a white person or a free black from the north, do you not count those premature deaths as being caused by slavery?
Also, if you want to REALLY figure out what is worse, you have to look at percentages. Individuals who are not imprisoned don't experience the depredations of those who are imprisoned. There is no such thing as vicarious suffering or vicarious death.
So, to know which system was worse, you have to look at the probability that the average person ends up suffering premature death and endures extreme hardship. Let's double the 20 million number to 40 million people who died prematurely from starvation, hard labor and various other depredations at the hands of the commies.
For most of the Communist era, the Russians had about 250 million people. The Chinese over a billion. Round it off to 1.2 billion (that's probably a low number). So, 40 million (that's a high number) out of 1.2 billion had early deaths under communism. That is about 3.3 percent of the total population. And that is a HIGH number. it was probably closer to 2%.
Now, let's look at blacks living under slavery. Do you really think the percentage who died early is less than 10%? Slave masters couldn't get much work out of 50 year old field hands that were bent over with arthritis. They might have been somewhat more protective of young slaves who were still productive "property". But what advantage was there to giving medical care, healthy food, and proper shelter to older slaves?
The number of blacks dying prematurely under slavery was surely higher than 2% or even 3.3%.
So, if you had to choose which system to live under, which would you choose?
Live in China under the communists and take a 3.3% risk of dying early?
Or live as a slave in the American south in the 1800s and take a 10% (probably higher) risk of dying early?
Remind me again how the life of an American slave was better than living under communism?
The quoted poster is not the only guilty party but:
A lot of speculation to reach a conclusion of little usefulness.
Which is worse, having to eat a whole fruitcake or a whole tuna banana enchilada? Who gives a fuck, lots of different not-wrong answers exist. They both suck.
Here's another great idea I'll waste my time expressing: not every post has to include an assault on someone else's intelligence. Let's just assume, for every post, everyone but the poster is an idiot asshole and save ourselves some reading time.
I don't agree that the flag in question is that of traitors. It is the flag of the side that lost the civil war.
On a side note.
A person from Kansas calling someone a carpetbagger. That's a joke.
Which brings to mind another joke.
Lone Ranger: "Surrounded by 10,000 Indians. We're up shit creek without a paddle Tonto." Tonto: "What do you mean "we", Kemosabe?"
You sound like you are ashamed (at least for the purposes of your post) you live in what was part of the union then. Where you were born is out of your control. Where you live your adult life is within your control. After 20 years in MN, I've been in Texas for 38. I decided where I want to live. I don't rely on an accident of birth.
One thing I've noticed is the difference the way the Civil War is looked at. It's a much bigger deal in the South. Up North it's no big deal, it's something we studied in school. Until something brings it to the forefront of the news.
That must be because we won
The economic cost of the war to the South was staggering. The destruction wrought by the war was mostly visited on the South with only a few battles bringing any similar destruction to northern venues. The South's commercial and industrial centers were destroyed. It's ports and railroads were destroyed. Plus, with the stroke of a pen, billions of dollars of 'wealth' were erased with emancipation. Reconstruction made matters worse. The South's natural resources and taxes were harvested by northerners and exported for the benefit of the North, while the South's infrastructure continued to languish and further degenerate into ruin. That's why southerners remember the war more vividly. It wasn't a 'remote' affair, like it was with most northerners. It was an up close and personal experience. A much, much greater portion of southerners, than northerners, experienced the horrors of that war and its aftermath first hand, and they told their children and their children's children, and so forth, about the horror they exerienced.
Regarding the "Stars and Bars", visit Gettysburg, PA. The "Stars and Bars" are flying everywhere, and no one is making a fuss. Nor is anyone suggesting that those who are flying that flag are "devolved from illiterate, hillbilly parentage". BTW, lived in Minnesota for a number of years: Carlton, Cloquet, Bemidji. Loved it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodog44
I've tried but I can not imagine what it is like to be as stupid as you are. Slavery was and still is awful. But it dosen't even come close to the number of deaths caused by the purges, the intentional starving millions in Ukrain, gulags, etc., etc., Mao is reportably responsible for over 20 million by himself. Slave owners didn't intentionaly destroy their property. That does not make economic sense. I agree that alot of black people were hurt or died but to compare it to Stalin and Mao confirms that you are a fucking idiot.
+1
It's estimated that some 597,000 slaves were imported into the 13 colonies and then states by 1865. At the outbreak of the Civil War,the 1860 census calculated that there were about 3,951,000 slaves in the United States of America. Mao managed to starve or kill more than 72 million of his fellow Chinese between 1949 and 1975 (Death by Government, Rummel). And that's not counting the additional 6+ million that died in the 1945-49 Civil War.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wellendowed1911
Ex-Nyer is right- there's no comparison- Slavery was perhaps one of the most brutal actions done by mankind. Do you realize most American Blacks can't even trace their ancestral roots because of how the slaves were dispersed. At least 2 million died during the middle passage- EX Nyer has not even accounted for the backlash of slavery which today still has inequalities, racism etc.
Slavery is slavery, WE. The East African slave trade has exacted a far greater toll in human lives and human misery than the Atlantic slave trade ever did -- including the notorious "middle passage". East African slave trade has been going on for over a thousand years, and it's still going on, WE. But no one wants to talk about that because the "white devils" are only peripherally involved, WE, and no one wants to point fingers at other, African culprits.
And here's a FYI for you, WE: Hitler's concentration camps were "slave camps", WE. Stalin's "farm collectives" and Gulag were "slave camps", WE. Mao's "collectives" were slave camps, WE. How do you quantify anyone of those institutions -- where misery and death, not cotton, was often the intent and product of being enslaved -- as 'less terrible' than agricultural plantation slavery in the U.S., WE? Look at the maps below and explain why you aren't criticizing modern slavery as much as you do a system that was overthrown and abolished a century and half ago, WE.
What the fuck are you talking about, you lying tranny fucker? I never mentioned Lincoln or anything he said. So why are you pretending that I said something different? Why are you trying to put words in my mouth? Perhaps because you are fundamentally dishonest? Perhaps because you are trying to change the subject because you are losing an argument before you even started?
That's precisely the point, you lying, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass, you purposefully ignored what motivated Lincoln's call to arms to skew the argument in your favor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExNYer
How stupid are you? They were rebelling AGAINST that flag.
And those Irish rebels of 1917-1922 never tried to enslave anyone. They were trying to liberate their own people from oppression.
Yeah, you, lying, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass, your mick brethren say they were rebelling against "repression". But your stupid, lying, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass didn't explain why you're mick brethren so adamantly disagree with you and think that the Union Jack is more reprehensible than the "Stars and Bars", you lying, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. It's obvious, you lying, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass, that you're okay with the terror spawned by the "rebelling micks" but not by the clash of arms brought on by Southern secession. BTW, you lying, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass, you forgot to mention those mick bombings that killed innocent people in the 1960s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and 2001 -- so you're okay with those bombings too, you lying, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExNYer
Above is my post about why the South said it was seceding.
Below is what the idiot IBHankering wrote in response:
That is a near-perfect example of the stupidity and dishonesty of IBHankering.
My point was why the South wanted to secede. I said nothing about what Lincoln said or why he wanted to keep them in. And, ultimately, Lincoln's reasons for keeping them in are irrelevant to why they wanted to leave in the first place.
So, in a single short post, IBHankering attempts the following:
1) tries to put words in my mouth,
2) posts a non sequitur about Lincoln's reasons for preventing secession,
3) does NOT address the point I made about why the South said it was seceding in the first place;
4) changes the subject (Illinois was racist, too!!)
Is there any doubt that iBHankering is the MOST dishonest poster on this board?
DISHONEST, you lying, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass!?! Despite your obvious lie, your lying, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass DID comment on what the Civil War was about; ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExNYer
Quote:
Originally Posted by The2Dogs
It is evident that the OP ... probably thinks it was a war over slavery.
Of course it was.
... hence, Lincoln's own words were employed to repudiate your ignorant position, you lying, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. BTW, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass, it wasn't until AFTER Lincoln made that call to arms that Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas and North Carolina seceded. So his overt militaristic solution lost him four additional states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExNYer
How many slaves died outright from beatings, lynchings and disease (especially on the slave boats)?
Those notorious "middle-passage horrors" -- as it relates to American involvement -- rest almost entirely on Yankee merchants, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass.
Let me make something very clear to our Irish Carpetbagger, I have posted many times that I DO NOT drink and have never started or ended the practice. To say otherwise is a low life way of trying to discredit what I write. How about this, can you imagine, an Irishman criticizing someone for drinking.
Numbers, numbers, numbers; the United States as a political entity has a very specific start date and you cannot blame the country for things that happened before or for the way things were bequeathed by another entity ala blame George Bush. It is an outright lie to say that slavery was practiced in the US for over 200 years. It is accurate to say that slavery was in the colonies that beacame the US for over 200 years. This is not semantics, this is legal definition with a nod to those who want reparations.
"KNOWING" what flag is referred to is not the same as assuming what flag is being referred to. I am a reenactor and so are some of my friends. We KNOW what we're talking about not what some idiot assumes is true.
Awfully sensitive about that son of the bog comment don't you think?
Had to cut and paste this "So much Barbra Streisand! Now slavery existed in the U.S. for about 90 years or from the creation of the country (signing of the Constitution) to the end of the Confederacy. Before that slavery existed under English, Dutch, Spanish, and French law.
Horseshit. Don't pawn off slavery in North America on just foreigners. There were slaves in the South for 246 years. They wee brought here in response to demand for them by the landowners living HERE who decided it would be more profitable to exploit Africans than to pay white farmhands. Without that demand, the laws would have made no difference."
I notice you called them foreigners. Incorrect if we are to believe your logic. They were the people who became American citizens. So if they are foreigners then their sins are not the sins of the country that became the US. You can't have it both ways. Africans were not the only people that they made into slaves. Kind of a race centric comment but what can you expect from an Irish import. (refers back to earlier) Once an Irishman then always an Irishman. Actually the logic was not about paying white farmers but there were not enough people in the country to plow the fields. Those white farmers wanted to farm their own land and farming was a 24 hour job. No they needed field hands and if they couldn't get them from Europe then they had to get them somewhere. Now the Portuguese and had found slavery in Africa among African tribes. They had few colonies in the new world except in what is now South America (Brazil and the north coast) but the Spanish had colonies all around the Gulf. The Spanish became the dealers of slavery in the new world. As Spanish influence waned the Dutch, French, and English stepped up. We only hear about the English and Americans but I remind you of the Amistad a Spanish ship that became embroiled in a legal action. I also have to remind you that Jefferson outlawed the importation of slaves in 1803. Numbers! United States-1787, outlaw importation of slavery-1803, outlaw slavery in the Confederate States of America-1863, outlaw slavery in the United States-1865
I'm about finished with you but on the question of causation. Everyone lived shorter lives in the first part of the 19th century, black, white, and other. Did a black man live a shorter life? Yes, that was true of a freeman in the north, a freeman in the south, and a slave. Some people lived very long lives even if they were a slave. There are accounts of 100 year old people who were slaves in their youth and early middle age. If you are to be believed then that cannot be true. Each person is different. Not everyone is Ben Franklin.
Oh, when you parse something you need to include the complete thought and not subdivide to make your point. Otherwise what is to prevent someone from parsing your words individually.
Oh, and calling names is not the way to advance an argument. It is indicating surrender of your intellect. Referring to you as a son of the bog is a descriptive term by the way but you seem offended. I thought you were proud of being Irish.
A person from Kansas calling someone a carpetbagger. That's a joke."
Like I said, an Irishman calling someone who doesn't drink, drunk is the real joke. Also, I live in Kansas, I am from Missouri. Those are fighting words up here Munchie. Your whole argument falls apart when your facts are correct.
It didn't take too long. When someone like an Irish NYRKR is losing they go back to that old, tired charge that we are in favor of slavery. No one here has said that they are in favor of slavery. We are merely advancing the reasons why people 200 years ago thought it was a good idea. We ended slavery in this country 150 years ago at great cost on both sides. We have also paid a lot of money to alleviate the after affects of slavery. Can the IRA say the same thing? I suppose I could have some fun starting a thread about crazed, drunken, murdering Irishmen but no one wants to talk about Ted Kennedy here.
A person from Kansas calling someone a carpetbagger. That's a joke."
Like I said, an Irishman calling someone who doesn't drink, drunk is the real joke. Also, I live in Kansas, I am from Missouri. Those are fighting words up here Munchie. Your whole argument falls apart when your facts are correct.
Ethnic stereotyping absolutely fits your racist persona on board, fraud. I'm no Irish. I have no feeling about the Irish one way or another. But you assholes are ridiculous with your ethnocentric racism.
And nobody is worse at it than you JDIdiot.
Hypocritical, probably. Racist, to the max. A fraud and a liar, PROVEN TIME AND TIME AGAIN.
The economic cost of the war to the South was staggering. The destruction wrought by the war was mostly visited on the South with only a few battles bringing any similar destruction to northern venues. The South's commercial and industrial centers were destroyed. It's ports and railroads were destroyed. Plus, with the stroke of a pen, billions of dollars of 'wealth' were erased with emancipation.
Make sure you call it "stolen wealth". Because that is what slavery amounts to for the slave master.
Reconstruction made matters worse. The South's natural resources and taxes were harvested by northerners and exported for the benefit of the North, while the South's infrastructure continued to languish and further degenerate into ruin. That's why southerners remember the war more vividly. It wasn't a 'remote' affair, like it was with most northerners. It was an up close and personal experience. A much, much greater portion of southerners, than northerners, experienced the horrors of that war and its aftermath first hand, and they told their children and their children's children, and so forth, about the horror they experienced.
Did they tell their children and their children's children about the much greater horrors experienced by slaves?
This is like listening to a white collar embezzler complain about all the hardship that imprisonment wrought on him, his family, his income, and his career opportunities.
Tough shit. Don't do the crime in the frist place and you won't have to worry about the punishment.
Regarding the "Stars and Bars", visit Gettysburg, PA. The "Stars and Bars" are flying everywhere, and no one is making a fuss. Nor is anyone suggesting that those who are flying that flag are "devolved from illiterate, hillbilly parentage". BTW, lived in Minnesota for a number of years: Carlton, Cloquet, Bemidji. Loved it!
Yeah, but they hated you.
It's estimated that some 597,000 slaves were imported into the 13 colonies and then states by 1865. At the outbreak of the Civil War,the 1860 census calculated that there were about 3,951,000 slaves in the United States of America. Mao managed to starve or kill more than 72 million of his fellow Chinese between 1949 and 1975 (Death by Government, Rummel). And that's not counting the additional 6+ million that died in the 1945-49 Civil War.
See? American slavery and the Confederacy weren't so bad!! Of course, let's not discuss the damage they would have done if they had had modern weaponry (like the Chinese) and a population of 1 billion (like the Chinese) to inflict harm on.
Slavery is slavery, WE. The East African slave trade has exacted a far greater toll in human lives and human misery than the Atlantic slave trade ever did -- including the notorious "middle passage". East African slave trade has been going on for over a thousand years, and it's still going on, WE. But no one wants to talk about that because the "white devils" are only peripherally involved, WE.
Yes, just like the North was only peripherally involved in southern slavery.
And here's a FYI for you, WE: Hitler's concentration camps were "slave camps", WE. Stalin's "farm collectives" and Gulag were "slave camps", WE. Mao's "collectives" were slave camps, WE. How do you quantify anyone of those institutions -- where misery and death, not cotton, was often the intent and product of being enslaved -- as 'less terrible' than agricultural plantation slavery in the U.S., WE? Look at the maps below and explain why you aren't criticizing modern slavery as much as you do a system that was overthrown and abolished a century and half ago, WE.
Typical IBHankering tactic. He tells you that you cannot speak about Tragedy X unless you also speak about Tragedy Y also. As if HE get to determine what is a valid criticism and what isn't. Yet more blame shifting by the Confederate sympathizer.
That's precisely the point, you lying, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass, you purposefully ignored what motivated Lincoln's call to arms to skew the argument in your favor.
You have a time-line problem, shit head. You will ALWAYS have a time line problem. That's why you will ALWAYS lose the argument about WHY the South seceded in the first place.
Something that comes LATER in time (i.e., Lincoln's statements about keeping the union whole) can NOT be a cause of something that came earlier (i.e., Southern secession). That's logic. Which clearly escapes you.
So try AGAIN to explain why Southern states seceded FIRST. You can't, can you? Unless you are ready to admit they seceded to preserve slavery. What Lincoln said AFTER secession started is irrelevant to why the South seceded in the first place. So, in typical dishonest fashion, you try to shift the argument to why Lincoln fought the Civil War instead. That's NOT the question.
The question is: "Why did the Confederacy secede in the first place?" ANSWER the question! Don't make up a new one, liar.
Yeah, you, lying, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass, your mick brethren say they were rebelling against "repression". But your stupid, lying, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass didn't explain why you're mick brethren so adamantly disagree with you and think that the Union Jack is more reprehensible than the "Stars and Bars", you lying, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass.
Do you have a citation for that, shit head? Or did you just make that up? How many people in Ireland do you think even knew what the Confederate flag was? They certainly knew and hated the Union Jack.
It's obvious, you lying, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass, that you're okay with the terror spawned by the "rebelling micks" but not by the clash of arms brought on by Southern secession.
I'm not OK with killing by the Irish either. But, let's keep the bad guys and the good guys properly aligned, dirt bag.
The Irish (good guys) were the victims of the English (bad guys), just like the black slaves (good guys) were the victims of the slave owners (bad guys). So, when the native Irish rebelled against English oppression, that would be the equivalent of a slave rebellion (good guys) against the Confederate states (bad guys). See how that works?
But that's not what the Civil War was. The Civil War was the Confederate states (bad guys) fighting against the northren states (also good guys) to maintain the enslavement of black people (good guys). Got your facts straight now?
BTW, you lying, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass, you forgot to mention those mick bombings that killed innocent people in the 1960s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and 2001 -- so you're okay with those bombings too, you lying, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass?
Once again, the desperate IBHankering tries to put words in my mouth. No, I am NOT okay with IRA bombings during The Troubles. Nor am I okay with Ulster Defense Force (UDF) bombings during the same period. You never mention the UDF or Protestant loyalist violence when you are discussing Ireland, do you?
in fact, you never seem to find fault with white Protestants, do you? Whether they are in the US or in England or in Northern Ireland, as long as they are fighting against Catholics, Jews, or brown-skinned people, you don't have any criticisms for them, do you?
DISHONEST, you lying, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass!?! Despite your obvious lie, your lying, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass DID comment on what the Civil War was about;...
And I was right. It WAS about slavery. The South seceded to maintain it. The North responded with force to keep them in. If the South had just let democracy take its course and let emancipation occur, there never would have been a Civil War. Your in-bred ancestors will ALWAYS be at fault for that disaster because they could not abide by simple democracy.
... hence, Lincoln's own words were employed to repudiate your ignorant position, you lying, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass.
Lincoln had to SAY and DO a lot of things that he did not reflect his true thinking. He could never come right out and say that the slaves should be set free because he was always in danger of losing the border states. Watch the movie "Lincoln" to get just a small sliver of the political horse trading he had to do to hold the Union together and that was AFTER he had already emancipated the slaves.
I repeat: Secession AND the Civil War WERE about slavery. The South seceded to maintain slavery. The North responded with force to keep them in. If the South had just let democracy take its course and let emancipation occur, there never would have been a Civil War. Your in-bred ancestors will ALWAYS be at fault for that disaster because they could not abide by simple democracy.
BTW, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass, it wasn't until AFTER Lincoln made that call to arms that Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas and North Carolina seceded. So his overt militaristic solution lost him four additional states.
More bullshit. What was Lincoln supposed to do when seven states seceded? Say nothing? The secession of those other four, especially Virginia and NC, was inevitable. Lincoln's pronouncement merely beat them to the punch. They were going to secede no matter what Lincoln did.
Those notorious "middle-passage horrors" -- as it relates to American involvement -- rest almost entirely on Yankee merchants, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass.
Once again, blame shifting by the Confederate sympathizer. Those middle passage deaths were primarily caused by the DEMAND for slaves by the slave owners. The ship owners share the blame, but they are not primarily responsible.
Listening to this bullshit excuse is like listening to drug users blame their drug dealers for all the violence and robberies they commit in order to get more drugs.
Let me make something very clear to our Irish Carpetbagger, I have posted many times that I DO NOT drink and have never started or ended the practice.
I don't give a shit what you say about not drinking, I can read your idiotic posts from 2 AM and draw my own conclusions.
To say otherwise is a low life way of trying to discredit what I write.
Your bigotry and stupidity discredit what you write. You CONSTANTLY bring up other peoples race and ethnicity to insinuate that they are inferior to you. Your idiotic comments about "son of the bog" and alcoholism is yet more proof of this.
How about this, can you imagine, an Irishman criticizing someone for drinking.
Yeah, I can. But you can't because you are steeped in every bigoted stereotype your ignorant parents taught you. So, drinking is an Irish thing, not a British or Scots thing.
But the truth is that the British Isles have always had sky-high rates of alcoholism. That includes the English, the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish. Temperance fever hit upper class English society first in the mid-to-late 1800s. Before that, boozing was an equal opportunity thing. England and Scotland were covered in pubs. But Prohibition was always a Protestant thing - over there and over here. And it didn't last very long. Hypocrisy never does. By the time WWII rolled around, the Brits were back to their old boozing ways. And they are STILL at it. But they will still make jokes about Irish drinking.
But Catholics in general and the Irish in particular never bought into temperance hypocrisy. So they became the butt of the drunkard jokes - even from a bunch of English drunkards. And the Protestants were never actually teetotalers. They were just hypocrites about it and ridiculed the Irish rather than look at themselves. Even today, you can take a look at England and Scotland and you will be shocked by the drunkenness. Attend a soccer match over there and find out.
And the same goes for this country. How does that old religious joke go? Something like "The Jews don't recognize the divinity of Jesus Christ. The Protestants don't recognize the authority of the Pope. And the Baptists don't recognize each other at the liquor store"?
Watch an episode of "Cops" and see how much booze rednecks like to drink. When the Georgia state troopers hit the trailer park and the shirtless, drunken idiot with the tattoos gets busted for beating his wife, do you think Old Billy Johnson is some Irishman? Or perhaps he's of English/Scottish stock?
But all that slips by you. You just keep believing all the biotries fed to you by your parents about Jews, Catholics, blacks, hispanics. etc.
Numbers, numbers, numbers; the United States as a political entity has a very specific start date and you cannot blame the country for things that happened before or for the way things were bequeathed by another entity ala blame George Bush. It is an outright lie to say that slavery was practiced in the US for over 200 years. It is accurate to say that slavery was in the colonies that beacame the US for over 200 years. This is not semantics, this is legal definition with a nod to those who want reparations.
"KNOWING" what flag is referred to is not the same as assuming what flag is being referred to. I am a reenactor and so are some of my friends.
Why am I not surprised?
We KNOW what we're talking about not what some idiot assumes is true.
Awfully sensitive about that son of the bog comment don't you think?
No, I just don't put up with bullshit from bigots.
Had to cut and paste this "So much Barbra Streisand! Now slavery existed in the U.S. for about 90 years or from the creation of the country (signing of the Constitution) to the end of the Confederacy. Before that slavery existed under English, Dutch, Spanish, and French law.
Horseshit. Don't pawn off slavery in North America on just foreigners. There were slaves in the South for 246 years. They wee brought here in response to demand for them by the landowners living HERE who decided it would be more profitable to exploit Africans than to pay white farmhands. Without that demand, the laws would have made no difference."
I notice you called them foreigners. Incorrect if we are to believe your logic. They were the people who became American citizens. So if they are foreigners then their sins are not the sins of the country that became the US. You can't have it both ways.
Another deliberated misreading. You are the one trying to have it both ways. You tried to blame England, France and the Dutch for what happened prior to 1776. Those other countries were the foreigners, NOT the people living here. My point was that the people living HERE were perfectly content to exploit the labor of black people. Resident of North America created the demand. So don't try to pawn that blame off onto other countries.
Africans were not the only people that they made into slaves.
We are NOT talking about the rest of the world. Don't change the subject. In Notth America only blacks were made into slaves. Indentured servants were not slaves even if their lives sucked.
Kind of a race centric comment but what can you expect from an Irish import. (refers back to earlier) Once an Irishman then always an Irishman.
What does that mean you bigoted fucking moron? Are you still drinking?
Actually the logic was not about paying white farmers but there were not enough people in the country to plow the fields.
Bullshit. Citation?
Those white farmers wanted to farm their own land and farming was a 24 hour job.
Yeah, so? Those white farmers also wanted to sell their excess food to others for profit. No one farmed JUST for themselves. The profit motive was alive and well even in the colonial era.
But, some other whites had a different idea - one that didn't involve paying money to other whites to do work. It was called "black slavery". See how this works?
No they needed field hands and if they couldn't get them from Europe then they had to get them somewhere. Now the Portuguese and had found slavery in Africa among African tribes. They had few colonies in the new world except in what is now South America (Brazil and the north coast) but the Spanish had colonies all around the Gulf. The Spanish became the dealers of slavery in the new world. As Spanish influence waned the Dutch, French, and English stepped up. We only hear about the English and Americans but I remind you of the Amistad a Spanish ship that became embroiled in a legal action. I also have to remind you that Jefferson outlawed the importation of slaves in 1803. Numbers! United States-1787, outlaw importation of slavery-1803, outlaw slavery in the Confederate States of America-1863, outlaw slavery in the United States-1865.
Could you possible meander more? Was there a point to all that nonsense?
I'm about finished with you but on the question of causation.
You aren't finished with shit. You haven't even started.
Everyone lived shorter lives in the first part of the 19th century, black, white, and other. Did a black man live a shorter life? Yes, that was true of a freeman in the north, a freeman in the south, and a slave. Some people lived very long lives even if they were a slave. There are accounts of 100 year old people who were slaves in their youth and early middle age. If you are to be believed then that cannot be true. Each person is different. Not everyone is Ben Franklin.
Long-lived outliers don't count. Averages do. And the average black slave lived a much shorter life that the average white or average black freeman. That means the slaves lives were shortened by slavery. So, slavery killed them. NOTHING you have written has rebutted that. EVERYTHING you have written has tried to divert from that.
Oh, when you parse something you need to include the complete thought and not subdivide to make your point. Otherwise what is to prevent someone from parsing your words individually.
What did I parse? I made the CORRECT point that you analyze AVERAGES not outliers and anecdotes when you are examining the effect of slavery on the lives of slaves. You, on the other hand, have done everything you can to obfuscate those simple facts.
Oh, and calling names is not the way to advance an argument.
I didn't call you names to advance an argument. I called you names to highlight your bigotry and stupidity. There is a difference.
It is indicating surrender of your intellect.
No, it indicates your bigotry and stupidity.
Referring to you as a son of the bog is a descriptive term by the way but you seem offended.
No, it was intended to belittle me. That's what bigots like you do. When you are losing an argument, you refer to our opponent as a "son of a bog" or as a "muslim comedian" as someone did above, or you point out - for no apparent reason - that someone is a "Jew and a Communist", like IBHankering did.
Then you try to deny it (it was just a descriptive term, by the way!) because you are a coward on top of everything else.
I thought you were proud of being Irish.
I am. That's why i don't let some stupid WASP bigot refer to me as a "son of a bog" without responding in kind. I don't turn the other cheek to idiots.
In other threads you have taken careful pains to point out the ethnicity and race of people you disagree with or that have committed some crime that you read about. Some times you are subtle, some times you are not.
But, from now on, I will call you out on it every time.
In other threads you have taken careful pains to point out the ethnicity and race of people you disagree with or that have committed some crime that you read about. Some times you are subtle, some times you are not.
But, from now on, I will call you out on it every time.
