How embarrassing...

[P@triot]

Logically certain. Equating Social Security to slavery is unhinged, incoherent and utterly ridiculous.

Only to progressives who don't want to acknowledge that they will have slavery one way or another.

 

[BoSoxGal]

Senator Byrd renounced his racist past and deeply regretted his involvement in the KKK. He spoke about this very eloquently many times and explained that he was formed by the society in which he was raised but through the love for his grandson he came to understand how terribly wrong racism and segregation were.

So wait...he was a grandfather before he figured out that racism is wrong? It took 60 years and a child to make him finally figure it out?

Guess what sweetie...George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin all vehemently opposed slavery 200 years before Senator Byrd supposedly "figured it out" (you progressive minions will believe anything your left-wing masters feed you). And yet your left-wing pals are calling to erase these revered leaders from history.

Vehement opposition would involve manumission, but Washington didn't do that until his death and Jefferson only freed a handful, the rest were sold - presumably away from family units - by his estate after his death.

Lee wasn't against slavery, he was known as a fairly cruel slaveowner and refused to free his father-in-law's slaves after his death as had been directed in his will. He also allowed his troops to raid settlements and capture freed blacks for enslavement. A fair reading of the record clearly shows that he believed in and was happy to take advantage of the institution - and to orchestrate the deaths of hundreds of thousands to keep it alive.

During the postbellum century, when Americans North and South decided to embrace R. E. Lee as a national as well as a Southern hero, he was generally described as antislavery. This assumption rests not on any public position he took but on a passage in an 1856 letter to his wife. The passage begins: “In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages.” But he goes on: “I think it however a greater evil to the white than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.”
Read more: Making Sense of Robert E. Lee | History | Smithsonian
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Give the gift of Smithsonian
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

Only Franklin was decent enough to renounce slave ownership and become a vocal abolitionist during his lifetime.

 

[BoSoxGal]

They tried to preserve the status quo.

Kind like you morons want to preserve social security.

I'm not sure social security is comparable to slavery.

I'm certain it's not. No ambiguity.

Since you don't think about things, I understand why you are so foolishly certain.

Logically certain. Equating Social Security to slavery is unhinged, incoherent and utterly ridiculous.

With the exception of not working, do you have a choice whether the government takes your money for SS or not?

Self employment and tax dodging . . . otherwise, no.

But DUH - you are entitled to a benefit for the duration of your life after contributing to Social Security, whilst slaves were not paid during or after working life and had no guarantees of a decent living condition, ample nourishment, healthcare or even the right to keep their families intact.

Stupid childish nonsense comparison.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'm not sure social security is comparable to slavery.

I'm certain it's not. No ambiguity.

Since you don't think about things, I understand why you are so foolishly certain.

Logically certain. Equating Social Security to slavery is unhinged, incoherent and utterly ridiculous.

With the exception of not working, do you have a choice whether the government takes your money for SS or not?

Self employment and tax dodging . . . otherwise, no.

But DUH - you are entitled to a benefit for the duration of your life after contributing to Social Security, whilst slaves were not paid during or after working life and had no guarantees of a decent living condition, ample nourishment, healthcare or even the right to keep their families intact.

Stupid childish nonsense comparison.

I have no children, but if I die before retirement, my niece and nephew will inherit my rental properties. They will inherit my valuable musical instruments. They will inherit my IRA that I worked decades for. They will inherit my bank accounts and car, but what they will not inherit is one red cent of my social security money that I (and my employers) paid into my entire life.

I have multiple health problems, so that may be how it ends up. And if it does, yes, it is slavery because in a realistic sense, I worked for free for benefit of other people I've never known, never met, nor will my family ever meet.

Now what do you call it when somebody is forced to work for free against their will if not slavery?

 

[P@triot]

Vehement opposition would involve manumission, but Washington didn't do that until his death and Jefferson only freed a handful, the rest were sold - presumably away from family units - by his estate after his death.

Like all left-wingers, you are completely ignorant of history. Slaves were inherited. Washington inherited some from his own father. He inherited most from his wife's father. During that time, it was illegal to free your own slaves. Eventually, they got the law changed so that one could free their slaves upon their death (this is what Washington did).

However, by the time Thomas Jefferson was on his deathbed, the law had been change yet again. Anyone could free their slaves, but only if they could pay for that slave. Society found freed slaves to be a "burden" because they had no jobs, no land, no skillsets, and couldn't even read. Thus, they changed the law to state the the slave must receive "X" amount of dollars at the time of their release to survive off of. Thomas Jefferson died buried in debt (I believe it was $60,000 back then which would be the equivalent of six to seven figures today). Hence the reason he could not free his slaves.

Further still, they lived in an era where slavery was the norm. It is all they had ever known. For you to judge them through your smug lense of 2017 is a special kind of ignorance. These men vehemently opposed slavery and did everything in their power to end it. They should be revered by ungrateful pigs such as yourself.

“In 1769 I became a member of the [Virginia] legislature.… I made one effort in that body for the permission of the emancipation of slaves, which was rejected; and indeed, during the regal government nothing liberal could expect success. – Thomas Jefferson (1821)”

Excerpt From: Andrew M. Allison. “The Real Thomas Jefferson: The True Story of America's Philosopher of Freedom.” iBooks. This material may be protected by copyright.

 

[BoSoxGal]

I'm certain it's not. No ambiguity.

Since you don't think about things, I understand why you are so foolishly certain.

Logically certain. Equating Social Security to slavery is unhinged, incoherent and utterly ridiculous.

With the exception of not working, do you have a choice whether the government takes your money for SS or not?

Self employment and tax dodging . . . otherwise, no.

But DUH - you are entitled to a benefit for the duration of your life after contributing to Social Security, whilst slaves were not paid during or after working life and had no guarantees of a decent living condition, ample nourishment, healthcare or even the right to keep their families intact.

Stupid childish nonsense comparison.

I have no children, but if I die before retirement, my niece and nephew will inherit my rental properties. They will inherit my valuable musical instruments. They will inherit my IRA that I worked decades for. They will inherit my bank accounts and car, but what they will not inherit is one red cent of my social security money that I (and my employers) paid into my entire life.

I have multiple health problems, so that may be how it ends up. And if it does, yes, it is slavery because in a realistic sense, I worked for free for benefit of other people I've never known, never met, nor will my family ever meet.

Now what do you call it when somebody is forced to work for free against their will if not slavery?

It's social security INSURANCE. Do you have difficulty grasping the concept of insurance? Do you not understand how it works - auto, home, health? You pay in so it's there IF YOU NEED IT - but if you don't, the funds stay in the pool to help those who DO need it.

If you want to leave them an inheritance, buy life insurance.

 

[P@triot]

Vehement opposition would involve manumission, but Washington didn't do that until his death and Jefferson only freed a handful, the rest were sold - presumably away from family units - by his estate after his death.

Ignorance is a choice. One you apparently make every single day...

“There is nothing I would not sacrifice to a practicable plan of abolishing every vestige of this moral and political depravity.” – Thomas Jefferson (in a letter to Thomas Cooper - September 10, 1814)

Excerpt From: Andrew M. Allison. “The Real Thomas Jefferson: The True Story of America's Philosopher of Freedom.” iBooks. This material may be protected by copyright.

 

[P@triot]

It's social security INSURANCE. Do you have difficulty grasping the concept of insurance?

Insurance is neither sold nor purchased at the barrel of a gun, stupid.

 

[BoSoxGal]

Vehement opposition would involve manumission, but Washington didn't do that until his death and Jefferson only freed a handful, the rest were sold - presumably away from family units - by his estate after his death.

Like all left-wingers, you are completely ignorant of history. Slaves were inherited. Washington inherited some from his own father. He inherited most from his wife's father. During that time, it was illegal to free your own slaves. Eventually, they got the law changed so that one could free their slaves upon their death (this is what Washington did).

However, by the time Thomas Jefferson was on his deathbed, the law had been change yet again. Anyone could free their slaves, but only if they could pay for that slave. Society found freed slaves to be a "burden" because they had no jobs, no land, no skillsets, and couldn't even read. Thus, they changed the law to state the the slave must receive "X" amount of dollars at the time of their release to survive off of. Thomas Jefferson died buried in debt (I believe it was $60,000 back then which would be the equivalent of six to seven figures today). Hence the reason he could not free his slaves.

Further still, they lived in an era where slavery was the norm. It is all they had ever known. For you to judge them through your smug lense of 2017 is a special kind of ignorance. These men vehemently opposed slavery and did everything in their power to end it. They should be revered by ungrateful pigs such as yourself.

“In 1769 I became a member of the [Virginia] legislature.… I made one effort in that body for the permission of the emancipation of slaves, which was rejected; and indeed, during the regal government nothing liberal could expect success. – Thomas Jefferson (1821)”

Excerpt From: Andrew M. Allison. “The Real Thomas Jefferson: The True Story of America's Philosopher of Freedom.” iBooks. This material may be protected by copyright.

I'm not at all ignorant of history, arrogant asswipe. Jefferson made choices about how to utilize his wealth during the course of his lifetime and he was never so committed to VEHEMENT opposition of slavery to provide for manumission. He could have, he chose to expend his wealth when he had it on himself and his creature comforts. I know a great deal about Jefferson's life and lifestyle, including the fact that he repeatedly raped (because absent ability to say no, it's rape) Sally Hemmings and fathered six children by her. He *did* free them, but refused to free Sally, who was freed by his daughter to whom she had been nursemaid after his death.

And Jefferson lied and denied parentage of Sally's children, claiming they were fathered by other white family members. Perhaps he freed them to get them away from Monticello and further speculation about the striking resemblance they bore to him. Certainly he wasn't particularly noble in his dealings with his slaves and whatever words he put out there, he failed to avail himself of any of the opportunities he had to free them and devote himself VEHEMENTLY to the cause of abolition.

 

[P@triot]

Vehement opposition would involve manumission, but Washington didn't do that until his death and Jefferson only freed a handful, the rest were sold - presumably away from family units - by his estate after his death.

Ignorance is a choice. One you apparently make every single day...

“This abomination (slavery) must have an end. And there is a superior bench reserved in heaven for those who hasten it.” – Thomas Jefferson (in a letter to Edward Rutledge - July 14, 1787)

Excerpt From: Andrew M. Allison. “The Real Thomas Jefferson: The True Story of America's Philosopher of Freedom.” iBooks. This material may be protected by copyright.

 

[BoSoxGal]

Vehement opposition would involve manumission, but Washington didn't do that until his death and Jefferson only freed a handful, the rest were sold - presumably away from family units - by his estate after his death.

Ignorance is a choice. One you apparently make every single day...

“This abomination (slavery) must have an end. And there is a superior bench reserved in heaven for those who hasten it.” – Thomas Jefferson (in a letter to Edward Rutledge - July 14, 1787)

Excerpt From: Andrew M. Allison. “The Real Thomas Jefferson: The True Story of America's Philosopher of Freedom.” iBooks. This material may be protected by copyright.

Words - like Trump spews every day.

You provided the example yourself: Franklin. If Jefferson really wanted to, was deeply committed, he absolutely could have freed HIS slaves even if slavery was ongoing. He was ultimately too selfish; period.

 

[P@triot]

I'm not at all ignorant of history, arrogant asswipe... I know a great deal about Jefferson's life and lifestyle, including the fact that he repeatedly raped (because absent ability to say no, it's rape) Sally Hemmings and fathered six children by her.

Uh....yes....you are. Because that progressive lie also never happened. You are astoundingly ignorant. DNA exonerated Thomas Jefferson of that false accusation. You're too stupid to even know where it stems from.

“[But DNA testing shows] Thomas Woodson was not Thomas Jefferson’s son. So, the longest rumored charge against Jefferson, originally printed two centuries ago in publications of the day, was now proven wrong. Jefferson had been completely exonerated of that longstanding claim.”

Excerpt From: Barton, David. “The Jefferson Lies.” Wallbuilders, 2012-09-17. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Since you don't think about things, I understand why you are so foolishly certain.

Logically certain. Equating Social Security to slavery is unhinged, incoherent and utterly ridiculous.

With the exception of not working, do you have a choice whether the government takes your money for SS or not?

Self employment and tax dodging . . . otherwise, no.

But DUH - you are entitled to a benefit for the duration of your life after contributing to Social Security, whilst slaves were not paid during or after working life and had no guarantees of a decent living condition, ample nourishment, healthcare or even the right to keep their families intact.

Stupid childish nonsense comparison.

I have no children, but if I die before retirement, my niece and nephew will inherit my rental properties. They will inherit my valuable musical instruments. They will inherit my IRA that I worked decades for. They will inherit my bank accounts and car, but what they will not inherit is one red cent of my social security money that I (and my employers) paid into my entire life.

I have multiple health problems, so that may be how it ends up. And if it does, yes, it is slavery because in a realistic sense, I worked for free for benefit of other people I've never known, never met, nor will my family ever meet.

Now what do you call it when somebody is forced to work for free against their will if not slavery?

It's social security INSURANCE. Do you have difficulty grasping the concept of insurance? Do you not understand how it works - auto, home, health? You pay in so it's there IF YOU NEED IT - but if you don't, the funds stay in the pool to help those who DO need it.

If you want to leave them an inheritance, buy life insurance.

How would buying life insurance help me pass my SS to my family?

The difference between auto, home, life insurance and SS is that I had the option to buy into that insurance because I felt I need it. Not so with SS. If it were up to me, I would not have contributed to SS and had a hell of a retirement account today; maybe even consider early retirement.

Even with Commie Care, it's still an option. If you don't buy insurance, the government will keep your income tax refund check (which they have resulting in billions of confiscated dollars).

SS is a ponzi scheme where eventually, millions will be screwed by the government. Either that or government pays out what they promised bringing us further into debt.

Our federal government was not designed to provide health insurance, welfare, retirement, or child support. Our federal government is there to govern.

 

[Clementine]

The left is "furious" about slavery. They want statues of Robert E. Lee torn down. They want his name removed from buildings. They are "outraged"!

But.....uh.....there are schools, roads, and bridges bearing the name of former Democrat Senator Robert Byrd - a high ranking member of the KKK.

So....uh....where is the "outrage" by the fascists? Why aren't they rioting down in West Virginia? Why haven't they blown up the Robert C. Byrd bridge? Why haven't they torn down Byrd street signs and Byrd schools?

Oops.... Turns out the left could care less if you are a fierc racist, so long as you are a devout socialist. Not surprising in the least, considering they are the party of racism. They fought for slavery, founded the KKK, and fought against the Civil Rights movement.

Sign the Petition

And we didn't see all this outrage before Obama was president. It's a carefully constructed plan to cause turmoil and idiots are buying into it.

It's beneficial to America haters to keep civil unrest going. We've seen how easy it is to rile unsophisticated people in some areas but it's mostly Soros' paid protesters behind all the outrage. The media's role is making it appear that it's a bigger issue than it actually is.

 

[P@triot]

You provided the example yourself: Franklin. If Jefferson really wanted to, was deeply committed, he absolutely could have freed HIS slaves even if slavery was ongoing. He was ultimately too selfish; period.

It was against the law, you ignoramus.

 

[P@triot]

Notice how I have posted fact after fact with documented sources while BoSoxFail has posted nothing but uninformed opinion?

 

[P@triot]

Words - like Trump spews every day.

Words - like President Trump spews every day - which causes you fragile little snowflakes to completely lose your shit.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

It's more a civil war thing . You know, how they betrayed America and tried to destroy it .

They tried to preserve the status quo.

Kind like you morons want to preserve social security.

I'm not sure social security is comparable to slavery.

You do realize of course that the north and south viewed slaves in the same way right?

They don't.

They have to fit history to the narrative.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

It's more a civil war thing . You know, how they betrayed America and tried to destroy it .

They tried to preserve the status quo.

Kind like you morons want to preserve social security.

I'm not sure social security is comparable to slavery.

I'm certain it's not. No ambiguity.

Since you don't think about things, I understand why you are so foolishly certain.

Logically certain. Equating Social Security to slavery is unhinged, incoherent and utterly ridiculous.

Easy to spout off from a book of canned responses.

It's unfortunate that you (1) don't understand the context of the statement (2) recognize that slavery comes in many forms.

But we really don't expect much of you.....

Except canned responses.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

They tried to preserve the status quo.

Kind like you morons want to preserve social security.

I'm not sure social security is comparable to slavery.

I'm certain it's not. No ambiguity.

Since you don't think about things, I understand why you are so foolishly certain.

Logically certain. Equating Social Security to slavery is unhinged, incoherent and utterly ridiculous.

With the exception of not working, do you have a choice whether the government takes your money for SS or not?

This was discussing preserving the status quo.

Just like the left gets so fired up about efforts to end social security.

The generals probably didn't have political positions. They did as they were told.

But that makes them traitors.

Asswipes like Seawytch can't see past the last Saul Alinsky quote.