On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 11:26:53 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote:

Hey Johnny....does it make y'all feel better about yourself when y'all call others names?

Donna the Fool - Answer the questions posed to you.

On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 14:34:02 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:
I would certainly like the American unions help organize workers in Cuba
so they don't become economic slaves to the American corporations that
will get in there sooner or later. I've been working with an
anti-Castro, anti-communist group concerned about Cuba for several decades.

I suspect the Cuban government would beat the **** out of your union
organizers and throw them in prison.
The rest of your rant might play to people who have not read your
glowing comments about the benefits of socialism/communism.

wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 14:34:02 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:
I would certainly like the American unions help organize workers in Cuba
so they don't become economic slaves to the American corporations that
will get in there sooner or later. I've been working with an
anti-Castro, anti-communist group concerned about Cuba for several decades.

I suspect the Cuban government would beat the **** out of your union
organizers and throw them in prison.
The rest of your rant might play to people who have not read your
glowing comments about the benefits of socialism/communism.


Our union organizers make regular trips to Cuba. I went with them on one
trip. If you think i have made glowing comments about the benefits of
communism, you are delusional. I am a fan of northern European socialism.
These must be difficult concepts for you.

--
Posted with my iPhone 8+.

On Tuesday, July 17, 2018 at 2:36:46 PM UTC-4, John H wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 11:26:53 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote:

Hey Johnny....does it make y'all feel better about yourself when y'all call others names?

Donna the Fool - Answer the questions posed to you.

Oh no... Donna isn't really chiding others about calling names, is she?

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 7/16/18 9:05 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 15:46:12 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 7/16/18 2:25 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 09:11:43 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 7/16/18 12:20 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 02:39:13 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

And it was the British who brought a lot of the slaves to America. And
the Carib. They only freed them in England, not in any colonies.

Make that pretty much all the slaves. 18 years after we kicked the
British out the congress passed a low barring any more importation of
slaves. Most were already here before 1776, brought here on British
ships.


Portugal, England, Spain, France, the Netherlands, among other European
nations, engaged in bringing slaves to the "New World." The Portuguese
were the largest slave traders.

Slaves were brought here throughout much of the 19th Century.

Not legally, after 180

There are estimates that twelve to fifteen million Africans were brought
over as slaves, but many died in the transit. Their survivors lived in
slavery in this country beyond the Civil War, even though they were
emancipated. There are ways to enslave people without calling them slaves.

That gets us back to my contention that the civil war was unnecessary.
Perhaps if slavery was ended in a way that did not cost us 600,000
lives and destroy half of the country, the transition might have been
faster and less contentious. At least you admit the war did not make
the slaves equal. The process took 150 years, just to get where we are
now.


I see you are still promoting the idea that slavery was an ok thing. If
the former slaves are not equal, it is the fault of whitey.

I never said it was OK. I just said that the war was not the best way
to resolve the issue and you are simply proving the futility of that
method.


It wasn't futile; it was necessary. How many more generations of slavery
would have been acceptable to you and the rest of you white conservatives?


The war was about economics , not slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation
was made well in to the war and did not free all the spaces. You
Marylanders kept yours.

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 7/15/18 10:39 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
True North wrote:
John H

- show quoted text -

"Asshole, maybe. Keeping a long list...not necessary. I've never seen
anyone so afraid to answer a
question."


Y'all are an amusing old fart, Johnny.
Kalif asked me when the Brits were going to make reparations to their
former slaves defendants.
I wouldn't know the answer to that anymore than if a Brit asked when
'mericans were going to come to their senses and run Trump out on a rail.
Judging by the motley crew in here, I'd doubt it will be anytime soon.


Bilious must think Canadians are Brits. As for Herring, isn't he due for
another injury? �


They were Brits when the Brits were bringing slaves to America. They are
still part of the commonwealth.


This country welcomed slaves after it declared itself no longer part of
the British Empire. And the commonwealth is not a governmental entity
and, most important, it is a creature of the 20th century.


When we kicked out the British, Canada was still British. And England was
a major supplier of slaves. To the US, the Caribbean. Etc. the only
place the banned slavery was in England only, and they had lots of slaves
then. Then they just treated the Irish and Scots as slaves.

True North wrote:
Hey Johnny....does it make y'all feel better about yourself when y'all call others names?


Look in the mirror.

Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
On 7/17/18 11:28 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 10:01:15 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 7/17/18 9:25 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 08:11:36 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 7/17/18 2:57 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 21:54:58 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 7/16/18 9:05 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 15:46:12 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 7/16/18 2:25 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 09:11:43 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 7/16/18 12:20 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 02:39:13 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

And it was the British who brought a lot of the slaves to America. And
the Carib. They only freed them in England, not in any colonies.

Make that pretty much all the slaves. 18 years after we kicked the
British out the congress passed a low barring any more importation of
slaves. Most were already here before 1776, brought here on British
ships.


Portugal, England, Spain, France, the Netherlands, among other European
nations, engaged in bringing slaves to the "New World." The Portuguese
were the largest slave traders.

Slaves were brought here throughout much of the 19th Century.

Not legally, after 180

There are estimates that twelve to fifteen million Africans were brought
over as slaves, but many died in the transit. Their survivors lived in
slavery in this country beyond the Civil War, even though they were
emancipated. There are ways to enslave people without calling them slaves.

That gets us back to my contention that the civil war was unnecessary.
Perhaps if slavery was ended in a way that did not cost us 600,000
lives and destroy half of the country, the transition might have been
faster and less contentious. At least you admit the war did not make
the slaves equal. The process took 150 years, just to get where we are
now.


I see you are still promoting the idea that slavery was an ok thing. If
the former slaves are not equal, it is the fault of whitey.

I never said it was OK. I just said that the war was not the best way
to resolve the issue and you are simply proving the futility of that
method.


It wasn't futile; it was necessary. How many more generations of slavery
would have been acceptable to you and the rest of you white conservatives?

You are the one who said "Their survivors lived in slavery in this
country beyond the Civil War, even though they were emancipated"

How many generations was that?



The slavery to which I was referring was no longer the actual
slavery...you didn't perceive that?
White racism towards people of color in this country will never die out.
The actual slavery in the south would not have ended sans the Civil War.

Slavery has ended in countries throughout the former British colonies
and we are the only one that think we needed a devastating war to do
it.
I thought you were against war. You seem to think economic pressures
are all we need to cure all of the world's ills but this one.
The reality is that slavery was economically based and could have been
brought down with economic pressure. If slave produced goods were no
longer accepted in trade with the north and the rest of the civilized
world, slavery would have ended very fast.


Oh, yeah...that free market bull****. Loonytarianism.

===

I guess you've chosen to ignore the fact that legalized slavery did
end everywhere else around the world without fighting any wars? And
free market economics is far from loony; it's proven in fact. Just
look at what centralized planning did for the old Soviet Union and
Cuba for example.



I'm not going to waste time trying to convince you righties of the error
of your ways on these subjects...Wiki has an answer suitable for you:

While slavery was institutionally recognized by most societies, it has
now been outlawed in all recognized countries, the last being Mauritania
in 2007. Nevertheless, there are an estimated 45.8 million people
subject to some form of modern slavery worldwide. The most common form
of the slave trade is now commonly referred to as human trafficking. In
other areas, slavery (or unfree labour) continues through practices such
as debt bondage, the most widespread form of slavery today, serfdom,
domestic servants kept in captivity, certain adoptions in which children
are forced to work as slaves, child soldiers, and forced marriage.

Slavery still exists.

There's no real "free market economy" anywhere in the world. If you want
to cite the USA as an example, keep in mind that there are many ways
corporations collude with other corporations and governmental entities
to maintain artificially high prices for many items and services.


Cite 5 or 10 "WAYS" as a show of good faith that you aren't just
"making **** up".

Note: Expecting crickets as usual.
--
x


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

John H. Wrote in message:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 12:14:53 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 7/17/18 11:28 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 10:01:15 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 7/17/18 9:25 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 08:11:36 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 7/17/18 2:57 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 21:54:58 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 7/16/18 9:05 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 15:46:12 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 7/16/18 2:25 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 09:11:43 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 7/16/18 12:20 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 02:39:13 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

And it was the British who brought a lot of the slaves to America. And
the Carib. They only freed them in England, not in any colonies.

Make that pretty much all the slaves. 18 years after we kicked the
British out the congress passed a low barring any more importation of
slaves. Most were already here before 1776, brought here on British
ships.


Portugal, England, Spain, France, the Netherlands, among other European
nations, engaged in bringing slaves to the "New World." The Portuguese
were the largest slave traders.

Slaves were brought here throughout much of the 19th Century.

Not legally, after 180

There are estimates that twelve to fifteen million Africans were brought
over as slaves, but many died in the transit. Their survivors lived in
slavery in this country beyond the Civil War, even though they were
emancipated. There are ways to enslave people without calling them slaves.

That gets us back to my contention that the civil war was unnecessary.
Perhaps if slavery was ended in a way that did not cost us 600,000
lives and destroy half of the country, the transition might have been
faster and less contentious. At least you admit the war did not make
the slaves equal. The process took 150 years, just to get where we are
now.


I see you are still promoting the idea that slavery was an ok thing. If
the former slaves are not equal, it is the fault of whitey.

I never said it was OK. I just said that the war was not the best way
to resolve the issue and you are simply proving the futility of that
method.


It wasn't futile; it was necessary. How many more generations of slavery
would have been acceptable to you and the rest of you white conservatives?

You are the one who said "Their survivors lived in slavery in this
country beyond the Civil War, even though they were emancipated"

How many generations was that?



The slavery to which I was referring was no longer the actual
slavery...you didn't perceive that?
White racism towards people of color in this country will never die out.
The actual slavery in the south would not have ended sans the Civil War.

Slavery has ended in countries throughout the former British colonies
and we are the only one that think we needed a devastating war to do
it.
I thought you were against war. You seem to think economic pressures
are all we need to cure all of the world's ills but this one.
The reality is that slavery was economically based and could have been
brought down with economic pressure. If slave produced goods were no
longer accepted in trade with the north and the rest of the civilized
world, slavery would have ended very fast.


Oh, yeah...that free market bull****. Loonytarianism.

===

I guess you've chosen to ignore the fact that legalized slavery did
end everywhere else around the world without fighting any wars? And
free market economics is far from loony; it's proven in fact. Just
look at what centralized planning did for the old Soviet Union and
Cuba for example.



I'm not going to waste time trying to convince you righties of the error
of your ways on these subjects...Wiki has an answer suitable for you:

While slavery was institutionally recognized by most societies, it has
now been outlawed in all recognized countries, the last being Mauritania
in 2007. Nevertheless, there are an estimated 45.8 million people
subject to some form of modern slavery worldwide. The most common form
of the slave trade is now commonly referred to as human trafficking. In
other areas, slavery (or unfree labour) continues through practices such
as debt bondage, the most widespread form of slavery today, serfdom,
domestic servants kept in captivity, certain adoptions in which children
are forced to work as slaves, child soldiers, and forced marriage.

Slavery still exists.

There's no real "free market economy" anywhere in the world. If you want
to cite the USA as an example, keep in mind that there are many ways
corporations collude with other corporations and governmental entities
to maintain artificially high prices for many items and services.

That's a super example of why the blacks in this country complain of oppression - they're being
'trafficked'. Ah yes, human trafficking is an accepted form of 'slavery' in this country. I suppose
we should give the poor more money to stop this practice, eh Krausee?

Oh, wait, maybe you're talking of Nigeria? The discussion had to do with slavery in this country.


Harry lives in the underworld where anything goes.
--
x


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

Wayne.B Wrote in message:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 12:14:53 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

I guess you've chosen to ignore the fact that legalized slavery did
end everywhere else around the world without fighting any wars? And
free market economics is far from loony; it's proven in fact. Just
look at what centralized planning did for the old Soviet Union and
Cuba for example.



I'm not going to waste time trying to convince you righties of the error
of your ways on these subjects...Wiki has an answer suitable for you:

While slavery was institutionally recognized by most societies, it has
now been outlawed in all recognized countries, the last being Mauritania
in 2007.

===

A typical twisted non-answer from our favorite narcissist who, in his
own mind, couldn't possibly be wrong about anything.


He never fails to disappoint, does he?
--
x


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/