Trying to discover what makes southern boys tick...
 

On Tuesday, July 17, 2018 at 12:14:57 PM UTC-4, 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.


So what did the wiki BS have to do with:

"I guess you've chosen to ignore the fact that legalized slavery did
end everywhere else around the world without fighting any wars?"

Answer: Absolutely nothing.

Trying to discover what makes southern boys tick...
 

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.

Trying to discover what makes southern boys tick...
 

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.

Isn't that what you said would bring Saddam down and that war was a
stupid thing?
It is funny that a war on foreign soil is so distasteful but a war
right here is "the only way" we can resolve what was basically an
economic issue.
In fact the economics didn't change that much either. If you were a
black person in Mississippi in 1866, your life really did not change
that much. You were still living in the same shack, you were doing the
same job and you were eating the same food. The only difference was
you got paid for the job and you turned around and paid the plantation
owner all of that money for your room and board. Certainly you could
leave but to go do what?
You said it yourself. It was still virtual slavery ... 600,000 dead
Americans later.
BTW the life was not much different if you were a "free" textile
worker in New York or a "free" coal miner in West Virginia through
most of the next 100 years. They were usually white people.

Trying to discover what makes southern boys tick...
 

On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 11:28:57 -0400, 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.

Harry thinks Cuba is a worker's paradise. I imagine he is a big fan of
Chavez in Venezuela too

Trying to discover what makes southern boys tick...
 

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.

Perhaps in the 3d world but it is mostly because nobody in the
developed world cares.

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.

Yet the prices of most things traded in the free markets are at
historically low levels.
The things that are the highest priced are the things that the
government regulates the most ... like drugs.
The government is a willing partner in the collusion that drives drug
prices because they go out of their way to create a non-competitive
environment. Perhaps it is the billions in bribes that congress takes
every year that has something to do with it.
I don't trust the government because I understand they are for sale to
the highest bidder.

Trying to discover what makes southern boys tick...
 

On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 12:23:49 -0400, John H.
wrote:

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 doesn't seem to mind human trafficking when it is across our
southern border. Coyotes can take money to dump tens of thousands of
people on our side of the fence and that is fine with him. He even
seems to be in favor of giving children back to whomever they were
trafficked across the border with, no questions asked.

Trying to discover what makes southern boys tick...
 

On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 13:57:12 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 12:23:49 -0400, John H.
wrote:

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 doesn't seem to mind human trafficking when it is across our
southern border. Coyotes can take money to dump tens of thousands of
people on our side of the fence and that is fine with him. He even
seems to be in favor of giving children back to whomever they were
trafficked across the border with, no questions asked.

Harry is a f'ing fool, as is his buddy, Donna the Fool.

Trying to discover what makes southern boys tick...
 

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.

Trying to discover what makes southern boys tick...
 

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

Trying to discover what makes southern boys tick...
 

On 7/17/18 1:43 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 11:28:57 -0400, 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.

Harry thinks Cuba is a worker's paradise. I imagine he is a big fan of
Chavez in Venezuela too


And once again, your fantasies about me are completely wrong. Oh,
Chavez...it was my privilege to shake hands with César Chávez many many
years ago at an AFL-CIO-United Farm workers event in California. I was
never a fan of Hugo Chávez.

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.

Trying to discover what makes southern boys tick...
 

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.

Trying to discover what makes southern boys tick...
 

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.

Trying to discover what makes southern boys tick...
 

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+.

Trying to discover what makes southern boys tick...
 

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?

Trying to discover what makes southern boys tick...
 

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.

Trying to discover what makes southern boys tick...
 

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.

Trying to discover what makes southern boys tick...
 

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


Look in the mirror.

Trying to discover what makes southern boys tick...
 

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/

Trying to discover what makes southern boys tick...
 

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/

Trying to discover what makes southern boys tick...
 

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/

Trying to discover what makes southern boys tick...
 

Wrote in message:
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.

Isn't that what you said would bring Saddam down and that war was a
stupid thing?
It is funny that a war on foreign soil is so distasteful but a war
right here is "the only way" we can resolve what was basically an
economic issue.
In fact the economics didn't change that much either. If you were a
black person in Mississippi in 1866, your life really did not change
that much. You were still living in the same shack, you were doing the
same job and you were eating the same food. The only difference was
you got paid for the job and you turned around and paid the plantation
owner all of that money for your room and board. Certainly you could
leave but to go do what?
You said it yourself. It was still virtual slavery ... 600,000 dead
Americans later.
BTW the life was not much different if you were a "free" textile
worker in New York or a "free" coal miner in West Virginia through
most of the next 100 years. They were usually white people.


Slavery exists today in the form of modern day unions. The
workers(slaves) are brainwashed into thinking they cannot
possibly survive outside the protective union umbrella. The
workers low self esteem has elevated union leadership to god-like
status. If you think this is untrue, engage any union member in
conversation about their work. Modern day slaves hold union
cards.
--
x


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

Trying to discover what makes southern boys tick...
 

On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 09:11:22 -0400 (EDT), justan wrote:

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?

LOL! Most perceptive.

Trying to discover what makes southern boys tick...
 

On 7/18/18 9:21 AM, justan wrote:
Wrote in message:
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.

Isn't that what you said would bring Saddam down and that war was a
stupid thing?
It is funny that a war on foreign soil is so distasteful but a war
right here is "the only way" we can resolve what was basically an
economic issue.
In fact the economics didn't change that much either. If you were a
black person in Mississippi in 1866, your life really did not change
that much. You were still living in the same shack, you were doing the
same job and you were eating the same food. The only difference was
you got paid for the job and you turned around and paid the plantation
owner all of that money for your room and board. Certainly you could
leave but to go do what?
You said it yourself. It was still virtual slavery ... 600,000 dead
Americans later.
BTW the life was not much different if you were a "free" textile
worker in New York or a "free" coal miner in West Virginia through
most of the next 100 years. They were usually white people.


Slavery exists today in the form of modern day unions. The
workers(slaves) are brainwashed into thinking they cannot
possibly survive outside the protective union umbrella. The
workers low self esteem has elevated union leadership to god-like
status. If you think this is untrue, engage any union member in
conversation about their work. Modern day slaves hold union
cards.


Mooks who haven't the skills to get a unionized job in the skilled
trades talk like you.

Trying to discover what makes southern boys tick...
 

On 7/18/2018 2:39 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 7/18/18 9:21 AM, justan wrote:
Wrote in message:
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.Â*Â* And
the Carib.Â* 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.

Isn't that what you said would bring Saddam down and that war was a
stupid thing?
It is funny that a war on foreign soil is so distasteful but a war
right here is "the only way" we can resolve what was basically an
economic issue.
In fact the economics didn't change that much either. If you were a
black person in Mississippi in 1866, your life really did not change
that much. You were still living in the same shack, you were doing the
same job and you were eating the same food. The only difference was
you got paid for the job and you turned around and paid the plantation
owner all of that money for your room and board. Certainly you could
leave but to go do what?
You said it yourself. It was still virtual slavery ... 600,000 dead
Americans later.
BTW the life was not much different if you were a "free" textile
worker in New York or a "free" coal miner in West Virginia through
most of the next 100 years. They were usually white people.


Slavery exists today in the form of modern day unions. The
Â* workers(slaves) are brainwashed into thinking they cannot
Â* possibly survive outside the protective union umbrella. The
Â* workers low self esteem has elevated union leadership to god-like
Â* status. If you think this is untrue, engage any union member in
Â* conversation about their work. Modern day slaves hold union
Â* cards.


Mooks who haven't the skills to get a unionized job in the skilled
trades talk like you.


Interesting comment. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
only 10.7 percent of wage and salary workers were members of unions
in 2017, down from 20.1 percent in 1983, the first year data was
collected.

According to you then, over 89 percent of workers don't have the skills
to get a unionized job, skilled trades or not. That's a bit far
fetched, don't you think?

Given the steep decline in union membership over the past three decades
maybe people don't *want* a union job even though a union job does
typically pay more. Has to be a reason for membership percentage
dropping almost in half.

Trying to discover what makes southern boys tick...
 

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 7/18/18 9:21 AM, justan wrote:
Wrote in message:
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.

Isn't that what you said would bring Saddam down and that war was a
stupid thing?
It is funny that a war on foreign soil is so distasteful but a war
right here is "the only way" we can resolve what was basically an
economic issue.
In fact the economics didn't change that much either. If you were a
black person in Mississippi in 1866, your life really did not change
that much. You were still living in the same shack, you were doing the
same job and you were eating the same food. The only difference was
you got paid for the job and you turned around and paid the plantation
owner all of that money for your room and board. Certainly you could
leave but to go do what?
You said it yourself. It was still virtual slavery ... 600,000 dead
Americans later.
BTW the life was not much different if you were a "free" textile
worker in New York or a "free" coal miner in West Virginia through
most of the next 100 years. They were usually white people.


Slavery exists today in the form of modern day unions. The
workers(slaves) are brainwashed into thinking they cannot
possibly survive outside the protective union umbrella. The
workers low self esteem has elevated union leadership to god-like
status. If you think this is untrue, engage any union member in
conversation about their work. Modern day slaves hold union
cards.


Mooks who haven't the skills to get a unionized job in the skilled
trades talk like you.


Those with skills hire unionized mooks. Because the government requires
it.

Trying to discover what makes southern boys tick...
 

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/18/2018 2:39 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 7/18/18 9:21 AM, justan wrote:
Wrote in message:
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.Â*Â* And
the Carib.Â* 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.

Isn't that what you said would bring Saddam down and that war was a
stupid thing?
It is funny that a war on foreign soil is so distasteful but a war
right here is "the only way" we can resolve what was basically an
economic issue.
In fact the economics didn't change that much either. If you were a
black person in Mississippi in 1866, your life really did not change
that much. You were still living in the same shack, you were doing the
same job and you were eating the same food. The only difference was
you got paid for the job and you turned around and paid the plantation
owner all of that money for your room and board. Certainly you could
leave but to go do what?
You said it yourself. It was still virtual slavery ... 600,000 dead
Americans later.
BTW the life was not much different if you were a "free" textile
worker in New York or a "free" coal miner in West Virginia through
most of the next 100 years. They were usually white people.


Slavery exists today in the form of modern day unions. The
Â* workers(slaves) are brainwashed into thinking they cannot
Â* possibly survive outside the protective union umbrella. The
Â* workers low self esteem has elevated union leadership to god-like
Â* status. If you think this is untrue, engage any union member in
Â* conversation about their work. Modern day slaves hold union
Â* cards.


Mooks who haven't the skills to get a unionized job in the skilled
trades talk like you.


Interesting comment. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
only 10.7 percent of wage and salary workers were members of unions
in 2017, down from 20.1 percent in 1983, the first year data was
collected.

According to you then, over 89 percent of workers don't have the skills
to get a unionized job, skilled trades or not. That's a bit far
fetched, don't you think?

Given the steep decline in union membership over the past three decades
maybe people don't *want* a union job even though a union job does
typically pay more. Has to be a reason for membership percentage
dropping almost in half.


And almost all those union people are government.

Trying to discover what makes southern boys tick...
 

On Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 3:08:05 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/18/2018 2:39 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 7/18/18 9:21 AM, justan wrote:
Wrote in message:
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.Â*Â* And
the Carib.Â* 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.

Isn't that what you said would bring Saddam down and that war was a
stupid thing?
It is funny that a war on foreign soil is so distasteful but a war
right here is "the only way" we can resolve what was basically an
economic issue.
In fact the economics didn't change that much either. If you were a
black person in Mississippi in 1866, your life really did not change
that much. You were still living in the same shack, you were doing the
same job and you were eating the same food. The only difference was
you got paid for the job and you turned around and paid the plantation
owner all of that money for your room and board. Certainly you could
leave but to go do what?
You said it yourself. It was still virtual slavery ... 600,000 dead
Americans later.
BTW the life was not much different if you were a "free" textile
worker in New York or a "free" coal miner in West Virginia through
most of the next 100 years. They were usually white people.


Slavery exists today in the form of modern day unions. The
Â* workers(slaves) are brainwashed into thinking they cannot
Â* possibly survive outside the protective union umbrella. The
Â* workers low self esteem has elevated union leadership to god-like
Â* status. If you think this is untrue, engage any union member in
Â* conversation about their work. Modern day slaves hold union
Â* cards.


Mooks who haven't the skills to get a unionized job in the skilled
trades talk like you.


Interesting comment. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
only 10.7 percent of wage and salary workers were members of unions
in 2017, down from 20.1 percent in 1983, the first year data was
collected.

According to you then, over 89 percent of workers don't have the skills
to get a unionized job, skilled trades or not. That's a bit far
fetched, don't you think?

Given the steep decline in union membership over the past three decades
maybe people don't *want* a union job even though a union job does
typically pay more. Has to be a reason for membership percentage
dropping almost in half.

The wages are more equalized when you consider the union dues and other mandatory contributions.

The union shops I've been to and worked in were filled with union workers who complained about their jobs, unions, and general environment all day long. A bunch of miserable SOB's. They finally realize it's not worth it to get a couple of extra bucks.

Trying to discover what makes southern boys tick...
 

On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 15:08:00 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 7/18/2018 2:39 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 7/18/18 9:21 AM, justan wrote:
Wrote in message:
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.

Isn't that what you said would bring Saddam down and that war was a
stupid thing?
It is funny that a war on foreign soil is so distasteful but a war
right here is "the only way" we can resolve what was basically an
economic issue.
In fact the economics didn't change that much either. If you were a
black person in Mississippi in 1866, your life really did not change
that much. You were still living in the same shack, you were doing the
same job and you were eating the same food. The only difference was
you got paid for the job and you turned around and paid the plantation
owner all of that money for your room and board. Certainly you could
leave but to go do what?
You said it yourself. It was still virtual slavery ... 600,000 dead
Americans later.
BTW the life was not much different if you were a "free" textile
worker in New York or a "free" coal miner in West Virginia through
most of the next 100 years. They were usually white people.


Slavery exists today in the form of modern day unions. The
* workers(slaves) are brainwashed into thinking they cannot
* possibly survive outside the protective union umbrella. The
* workers low self esteem has elevated union leadership to god-like
* status. If you think this is untrue, engage any union member in
* conversation about their work. Modern day slaves hold union
* cards.


Mooks who haven't the skills to get a unionized job in the skilled
trades talk like you.


Interesting comment. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
only 10.7 percent of wage and salary workers were members of unions
in 2017, down from 20.1 percent in 1983, the first year data was
collected.

According to you then, over 89 percent of workers don't have the skills
to get a unionized job, skilled trades or not. That's a bit far
fetched, don't you think?

Given the steep decline in union membership over the past three decades
maybe people don't *want* a union job even though a union job does
typically pay more. Has to be a reason for membership percentage
dropping almost in half.

Wow, four days later and no comment from Krause. Strange.