| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Take the idiot out~
On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 07:32:46 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote: On 11/25/17 12:54 AM, wrote: Further, you sort of put the cover on that pot when you posited several times here that the black slaves would have been better off without being emancipated for a few more generations. Unlike you, I don't expect historical figures to be perfect in every way or to meet some set of standards that you find acceptable. That is not what I said at all. I said economic sanctions may have been able to stop slavery without killing 3% of the population, destroying the economy and creating a social divide born of war that still exists today. Do you really think the life a black man in Mississippi improved all that much in "a few more generations"? Hell there are people who say it is still not all that great. It is hard to integrate when you are walking over a quarter of a million dead relatives of the people you want to accept you. I don't accept your rationalizations for the continuance of slavery. No, you are a democrat, war is always the answer for you. |
|
#3
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Take the idiot out~
On 11/25/17 10:52 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 07:32:46 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 11/25/17 12:54 AM, wrote: Further, you sort of put the cover on that pot when you posited several times here that the black slaves would have been better off without being emancipated for a few more generations. Unlike you, I don't expect historical figures to be perfect in every way or to meet some set of standards that you find acceptable. That is not what I said at all. I said economic sanctions may have been able to stop slavery without killing 3% of the population, destroying the economy and creating a social divide born of war that still exists today. Do you really think the life a black man in Mississippi improved all that much in "a few more generations"? Hell there are people who say it is still not all that great. It is hard to integrate when you are walking over a quarter of a million dead relatives of the people you want to accept you. I don't accept your rationalizations for the continuance of slavery. No, you are a democrat, war is always the answer for you. Oh, please. Every time you post on this subject, your posts get a little more bizarre. The cause of the Civil War was slavery and its possible expansion to the western territories, and preservation of the union. The southern slave states seceded after Lincoln, a Republican, was elected. Your southern slave-owning buddies fired the first shots. I don't know what the answer is for you libertarians, but as long as you keep nominating the sort of really strange candidates you do, you're not going to elect a POTUS. "What's an Aleppo, anyway?" |
|
#4
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Take the idiot out~
On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 11:05:35 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote: On 11/25/17 10:52 AM, wrote: On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 07:32:46 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 11/25/17 12:54 AM, wrote: Further, you sort of put the cover on that pot when you posited several times here that the black slaves would have been better off without being emancipated for a few more generations. Unlike you, I don't expect historical figures to be perfect in every way or to meet some set of standards that you find acceptable. That is not what I said at all. I said economic sanctions may have been able to stop slavery without killing 3% of the population, destroying the economy and creating a social divide born of war that still exists today. Do you really think the life a black man in Mississippi improved all that much in "a few more generations"? Hell there are people who say it is still not all that great. It is hard to integrate when you are walking over a quarter of a million dead relatives of the people you want to accept you. I don't accept your rationalizations for the continuance of slavery. No, you are a democrat, war is always the answer for you. Oh, please. Every time you post on this subject, your posts get a little more bizarre. The cause of the Civil War was slavery and its possible expansion to the western territories, and preservation of the union. The southern slave states seceded after Lincoln, a Republican, was elected. Your southern slave-owning buddies fired the first shots. The basis of slavery was based on an economic advantage and if the market had removed that economic advantage, slavery would have collapsed of it's own weight. The only question is whether your northern ancestors and european heroes would have actually boycotted slave produced cotton and other products. They were profiting from the slaves too. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| According to the idiot's... | General | |||
| idiot! | General | |||
| Oh my, I'm such an idiot! | ASA | |||
| Idiot #2 | ASA | |||
| Idiot #3 | ASA | |||
Hybrid Mode
