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!
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.
I wasn't losing. You were and are.
No one here has said that they are in favor of slavery.
No, you are not quite THAT stupid to admit it openly. You just make as many excuses for it as possible.
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.
Wow, nice choice of words. Makes it sound like the South was helping to end slavery. Let me correct it for you. "We" didn't end slavery. The Union ended slavery and at great cost in Union (northern) lives. The people who died in the south did not lose their lives ending slavery. They were attempting to perpetuate it.
We have also paid a lot of money to alleviate the after affects of slavery. Can the IRA say the same thing?
No, but then, the IRA never had slaves, did they? The Irish were the abused ones, moron. So they don't have to pay money to alleviate the affect of English oppression.
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.
See my comments above about drunkenness in the British Isles and in the US, particularly the South. Hypocrite.
Your bigotry knows no bounds. Nor does your stupidity.
Make sure you call it "stolen wealth". Because that is what slavery amounts to for the slave master. Those would be "your" words, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass.
Did they tell their children and their children's children about the much greater horrors experienced by slaves? Are you telling your children, nieces and nephews about the horror wrought by mick bombs on unsuspecting innocents in the U.K., you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass?
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. Listening to the racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass of a mick deny Yankee complicity in the slave trade is like listening to a racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass of a mick denying he has a drinking problem.
Tough shit. Don't do the crime in the frist place and you won't have to worry about the punishment.
Yeah, but they hated you. More of your very many lies, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. You're the one that is exiled from your "beloved homeland", you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass.
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. Mao starved them to death, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. "Starvation" isn't a modern weapon, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass.
Yes, just like the North was only peripherally involved in southern slavery. In the years leading up to the Civil War, greater than 50% of New York's exports were the product of slave labor, and New York City was the epicenter of outfitting slave ships, and the North pocketed some 40% of every fucking dollar profit made off southern, slave-picked cotton, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. There is nothing "peripheral" about Yankee complicity in American slavery, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass.
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. It was your ignorant, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass that made the preposterous claim that there was never anything worse in history; now your ignorant, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass wants to deflect and deny the fact that your ignorant, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass was wrong, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass.
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). Four states seceded AFTER Lincoln's proclamation, you ignorant, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. That's logic. Which clearly escapes you. What seems to escape you is that four states seceded AFTER Lincoln's proclamation -- not BEFORE, you ignorant, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass.
So try AGAIN to explain why Southern states seceded FIRST. Four states seceded AFTER Lincoln's proclamation, you ignorant, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. You can't, can you? Four states seceded AFTER Lincoln's proclamation, you ignorant, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. Unless you are ready to admit they seceded to preserve slavery. Four states seceded AFTER Lincoln's proclamation to preserve their sovereignty against an overreaching Federal government, you ignorant, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass.
What Lincoln said AFTER secession started is irrelevant to why the South seceded in the first place. No, you ignorant, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. It isn't "irrelevant" it's an "inconvenient fact" you're trying to hide because it sinks your argument, you ignorant, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. 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 subject was broached, and you commented on it, you ignorant, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. Now you're having your ignorant, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass handed to you, you ignorant, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass.
The question is: "Why did the Confederacy secede in the first place?" ANSWER the question! Don't make up a new one, liar.
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. Citation? Just check the ethnicity of the Confederates that were behind the stone wall on Marye's Heights at Fredericksburg and guess which flag they hated worse, you ignorant, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass.
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? Yeah, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass of mick, it's obvious you're a hypocrite when it suits your agenda.
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? Wrong asshole, those states seceded to preserve their sovereignty and drive out northern invaders, you 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? Yeah, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass, Protestant leader Oliver Cromwell didn't kill enough mick-pricks like 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?
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. More ignorant remarks from the racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. Told you before that the forebears fought for the North while your mick-prick cousins were lynching and burning freedmen in NYC, you 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. So your education comes from lib-retard movies, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass? That explains your profound ignorance on this subject, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. Read some books and get a real education, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass.
I repeat: Secession AND the Civil War WERE about slavery. The South seceded to maintain slavery. Those states seceded to maintain their sovereignty, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass! 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.
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. More lies from the racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. Those states seceded because of Lincoln's militaristic advances against the sovereignty of the states already seceded and NOT because of slavery, 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. Try again, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. New York Yankees -- not southerners -- were involved in the South American slave trade after it was banned in the U.S. New York Yankees were the DEMAND and responsible for those "middle-passage horrors", you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass.
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. Listening to the racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass of a mick deny Yankee complicity in the slave trade is like listening to a racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass of a mick denying he has a drinking problem.
Non-stop blathering about "mick" this and "mick" that. I said you were an ignorant bigot and you continually prove it.
This time you even lament that Cromwell didn't kill enough Irishmen. Typical bigot. Rooting for bigger massacres of the people he doesn't like.
Then, to top it off, you criticize the IRA for their tactics in fighting the overpowering English. Maybe they remember Cromwell's men too well.
At least the IRA tries to target British military, British politicians, and UDF hideouts. Cromwell wanted to kill poor peasants because they were Catholic. And, in more modern times, on Bloody Sunday, British troops gunned down innocent Irish protesters during an Easter Sunday march.
The Troubles are a typical example of sectarian violence mixed with nationalism. It was/is the logical consequence of about 8 centuries of English oppression.
But in true WASP bigot fashion, IBHankering thinks all the blame lies with those "micks". Just like all the blame for slavery lies with those New York merchant shipping companies. Not with, you know, the actual slave holders.
Non-stop blathering about "mick" this and "mick" that. I said you were an ignorant bigot and you continually prove it.
This time you even lament that Cromwell didn't kill enough Irishmen. Typical bigot. Rooting for bigger massacres of the people he doesn't like.
Then, to top it off, you criticize the IRA for their tactics in fighting the overpowering English. Maybe they remember Cromwell's men too well.
At least the IRA tries to target British military, British politicians, and UDF hideouts. Cromwell wanted to kill poor peasants because they were Catholic. And, in more modern times, on Bloody Sunday, British troops gunned down innocent Irish protesters during an Easter Sunday march.
The Troubles are a typical example of sectarian violence mixed with nationalism. It was/is the logical consequence of about 8 centuries of English oppression.
But in true WASP bigot fashion, IBHankering thinks all the blame lies with those "micks". Just like all the blame for slavery lies with those New York merchant shipping companies. Not with, you know, the actual slave holders.
Your racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass continues to deny Yankee complicity in the American slave system that existed before the Civil War, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. In the years leading up to the Civil War, greater than 50% of New York's exports were the product of slave labor, and New York City was the epicenter of outfitting slave ships, and the North pocketed some 40% of every fucking dollar profit made off southern, slave-picked cotton, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass.
