I really don't care if the founders owned slaves or not

[SuperDemocrat]

I see that this issue is going to be used to condemn America so I'm going to say that I don't care if Jefferson owned slaves and neither should anyone else.

And who exactly is going to ‘condemn America’ because some of the Founders owned slaves more than 200 years ago.

The democratic party?

 

[Vigilante]

Those WHITE FOUNDERS were such RADICAL SLAVE OWNERS!!!!

 

[HappyJoy]

Why wouldn't we want to know whether the founders had slaved or not only because it might give us a sad? Wingnuts today truly are the modern day Nonothings.

It isn't the fact that people know or don't know. Every history book in the United States mentions slavery up and down so ignorance of the issue isn't a issue at all. It is the fact a minor thing is blown way out of proportion in order to condemn the United States of America at every turn.

Slavery was a minor thing?

Yes because the number of slaves owned in those days was not as much as it was later on. It was a non-issue to most people because it was just assumed it would die out. It still is a non-issue so when someone says America should pay for its sins of slavery I can honeslty tell you I don't give a shit if a few slaves were over here.

It wasn't a non-issue if you were a slave and the fact that slavery was legal is of not small matter as it determined that some human beings simply weren't 'men'.

Now, to talk about our forefathers owning slaves is not to ignore all the good they did. As much as anything that they weren't perfect and this wasn't a perfect union. As a country we have a history of working through these things, working together with all sorts of good and injustices being done. It's important to acknowledge the full picture.

 

[TheOldSchool]

You said a founder signed a document that banned immigration into America. It was such a profoundly stupid comment, I decided to point out to you he went so far as to pay to bring "immigrants" into the country.

Alien and Sedition Acts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia <----try reading this. It was what I was referring to.

Great link. I especially enjoyed the part about how all immigration was banned as per a law passed by George Washington.

*note: everything in red font is completely fabricated and not included anywhere in the link

I actually said I believed that was true and just introducing it as a subject but I don't see how the naturalization act didn't halt immigration whatsoever into this country considering that the sedition act allowed non-citizens or recently arrived immigrants could be deported. I'm sure that was never used whatsoever by the government.

Some advice for you for the future based on what I've seen from your posts: What you believe is true, has regularly proven to not be true. So double-check from now on. Actually triple check. No way you'd fuck up 3/3 times.

I got some advice for you. Learn to think because just because the law didn't actually ban immigration doesn't actually mean that it didn't have an affect on it. You really are trying circumnavigate the more complex idea by disproving the not so complex statement. The law didn't actually ban immigration directly but who it kind of makes sense that if you make it harder to become a citizen and pair it with a law that allows you to deport non-citizens then wouldn't immigration be kind of stiffled to a certain degree?

No. You fucked up, looked stupid, and are now trying your best to backpedal. Own it and move on.

 

[HappyJoy]

Those WHITE FOUNDERS were such RADICAL SLAVE OWNERS!!!!

If you want to hyper focus on the exception to the rule in order to avoid any perceived guilt you feel you would have had otherwise, that's fine. I don't know why you would need to though.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Those WHITE FOUNDERS were such RADICAL SLAVE OWNERS!!!!

If you want to hyper focus on the exception to the rule in order to avoid any perceived guilt you feel you would have had otherwise, that's fine. I don't know why you would need to though.

Don't waste your time on that idiot.

 

[HappyJoy]

Those WHITE FOUNDERS were such RADICAL SLAVE OWNERS!!!!

If you want to hyper focus on the exception to the rule in order to avoid any perceived guilt you feel you would have had otherwise, that's fine. I don't know why you would need to though.

Don't waste your time on that idiot.

I know, one of these days I'll learn.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Alien and Sedition Acts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia <----try reading this. It was what I was referring to.

Great link. I especially enjoyed the part about how all immigration was banned as per a law passed by George Washington.

*note: everything in red font is completely fabricated and not included anywhere in the link

I actually said I believed that was true and just introducing it as a subject but I don't see how the naturalization act didn't halt immigration whatsoever into this country considering that the sedition act allowed non-citizens or recently arrived immigrants could be deported. I'm sure that was never used whatsoever by the government.

Some advice for you for the future based on what I've seen from your posts: What you believe is true, has regularly proven to not be true. So double-check from now on. Actually triple check. No way you'd fuck up 3/3 times.

I got some advice for you. Learn to think because just because the law didn't actually ban immigration doesn't actually mean that it didn't have an affect on it. You really are trying circumnavigate the more complex idea by disproving the not so complex statement. The law didn't actually ban immigration directly but who it kind of makes sense that if you make it harder to become a citizen and pair it with a law that allows you to deport non-citizens then wouldn't immigration be kind of stiffled to a certain degree?

No. You fucked up, looked stupid, and are now trying your best to backpedal. Own it and move on.

How so? You said there wasn't ANY law that banned immigration during the first fifteen years. That wasn't true because I pointed out the naturalization act which prolonged the naturlization of recent immigrants. Did or did not the law affect immigration into the United States and wasn't that the goal of the law in the first place?

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Those WHITE FOUNDERS were such RADICAL SLAVE OWNERS!!!!

If you want to hyper focus on the exception to the rule in order to avoid any perceived guilt you feel you would have had otherwise, that's fine. I don't know why you would need to though.

Don't waste your time on that idiot.

I know, one of these days I'll learn.

I know,...squeal... one of these ...squeal...days I'll learn

 

[HappyJoy]

Those WHITE FOUNDERS were such RADICAL SLAVE OWNERS!!!!

If you want to hyper focus on the exception to the rule in order to avoid any perceived guilt you feel you would have had otherwise, that's fine. I don't know why you would need to though.

Don't waste your time on that idiot.

I know, one of these days I'll learn.

I know,...squeal... one of these ...squeal...days I'll learn

Ew, you still fantasizing about anal rape from the other thread? I notice you're the one doing the squealing.

 

[Vigilante]

Those WHITE FOUNDERS were such RADICAL SLAVE OWNERS!!!!

If you want to hyper focus on the exception to the rule in order to avoid any perceived guilt you feel you would have had otherwise, that's fine. I don't know why you would need to though.

I do it to show just how fucked up you liberal scumbags are! You subversives grab at straws, like they were $20 bills!

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Why wouldn't we want to know whether the founders had slaved or not only because it might give us a sad? Wingnuts today truly are the modern day Nonothings.

It isn't the fact that people know or don't know. Every history book in the United States mentions slavery up and down so ignorance of the issue isn't a issue at all. It is the fact a minor thing is blown way out of proportion in order to condemn the United States of America at every turn.

You and others on right find are such whiners – you have to go so far as to make up ridiculous non-issues just so you can whine about them.

You should see this thread: Disagree with 'liberals' on anything any you are thrown out

Disagree with a liberal on anything and you are thrown out.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Those WHITE FOUNDERS were such RADICAL SLAVE OWNERS!!!!

If you want to hyper focus on the exception to the rule in order to avoid any perceived guilt you feel you would have had otherwise, that's fine. I don't know why you would need to though.

Don't waste your time on that idiot.

I know, one of these days I'll learn.

I know,...squeal... one of these ...squeal...days I'll learn

Ew, you still fantasizing about anal rape from the other thread? I notice you're the one doing the squealing.

I only fantasize about it happening to you.

 

[HappyJoy]

If you want to hyper focus on the exception to the rule in order to avoid any perceived guilt you feel you would have had otherwise, that's fine. I don't know why you would need to though.

Don't waste your time on that idiot.

I know, one of these days I'll learn.

I know,...squeal... one of these ...squeal...days I'll learn

Ew, you still fantasizing about anal rape from the other thread? I notice you're the one doing the squealing.

I only fantasize about it happening to you.

Hmm, yep, that still makes you look bad everytime you say it.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Great link. I especially enjoyed the part about how all immigration was banned as per a law passed by George Washington.

*note: everything in red font is completely fabricated and not included anywhere in the link

I actually said I believed that was true and just introducing it as a subject but I don't see how the naturalization act didn't halt immigration whatsoever into this country considering that the sedition act allowed non-citizens or recently arrived immigrants could be deported. I'm sure that was never used whatsoever by the government.

Some advice for you for the future based on what I've seen from your posts: What you believe is true, has regularly proven to not be true. So double-check from now on. Actually triple check. No way you'd fuck up 3/3 times.

I got some advice for you. Learn to think because just because the law didn't actually ban immigration doesn't actually mean that it didn't have an affect on it. You really are trying circumnavigate the more complex idea by disproving the not so complex statement. The law didn't actually ban immigration directly but who it kind of makes sense that if you make it harder to become a citizen and pair it with a law that allows you to deport non-citizens then wouldn't immigration be kind of stiffled to a certain degree?

No. You fucked up, looked stupid, and are now trying your best to backpedal. Own it and move on.

How so? You said there wasn't ANY law that banned immigration during the first fifteen years. That wasn't true because I pointed out the naturalization act which prolonged the naturlization of recent immigrants. Did or did not the law affect immigration into the United States and wasn't that the goal of the law in the first place?

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Why wouldn't we want to know whether the founders had slaved or not only because it might give us a sad? Wingnuts today truly are the modern day Nonothings.

It isn't the fact that people know or don't know. Every history book in the United States mentions slavery up and down so ignorance of the issue isn't a issue at all. It is the fact a minor thing is blown way out of proportion in order to condemn the United States of America at every turn.

Slavery was a minor thing?

Yes because the number of slaves owned in those days was not as much as it was later on. It was a non-issue to most people because it was just assumed it would die out. It still is a non-issue so when someone says America should pay for its sins of slavery I can honeslty tell you I don't give a shit if a few slaves were over here.

It wasn't a non-issue if you were a slave and the fact that slavery was legal is of not small matter as it determined that some human beings simply weren't 'men'.

Now, to talk about our forefathers owning slaves is not to ignore all the good they did. As much as anything that they weren't perfect and this wasn't a perfect union. As a country we have a history of working through these things, working together with all sorts of good and injustices being done. It's important to acknowledge the full picture.

I really don't need to say things like 'they weren't perfect' in order to talk about the founding of this country. The minute you say George Washington was awesome someone out there say 'he owned slaves' he is like a NAZI. BLa h blah blah blah blah. It has been a non-issue since 1865 and it was probably a non-issue before that.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Don't waste your time on that idiot.

I know, one of these days I'll learn.

I know,...squeal... one of these ...squeal...days I'll learn

Ew, you still fantasizing about anal rape from the other thread? I notice you're the one doing the squealing.

I only fantasize about it happening to you.

Hmm, yep, that still makes you look bad everytime you say it.

I'm sure you say that to make yourself feel less degraded.

 

[HappyJoy]

Why wouldn't we want to know whether the founders had slaved or not only because it might give us a sad? Wingnuts today truly are the modern day Nonothings.

It isn't the fact that people know or don't know. Every history book in the United States mentions slavery up and down so ignorance of the issue isn't a issue at all. It is the fact a minor thing is blown way out of proportion in order to condemn the United States of America at every turn.

Slavery was a minor thing?

Yes because the number of slaves owned in those days was not as much as it was later on. It was a non-issue to most people because it was just assumed it would die out. It still is a non-issue so when someone says America should pay for its sins of slavery I can honeslty tell you I don't give a shit if a few slaves were over here.

It wasn't a non-issue if you were a slave and the fact that slavery was legal is of not small matter as it determined that some human beings simply weren't 'men'.

Now, to talk about our forefathers owning slaves is not to ignore all the good they did. As much as anything that they weren't perfect and this wasn't a perfect union. As a country we have a history of working through these things, working together with all sorts of good and injustices being done. It's important to acknowledge the full picture.

I really don't need to say things like 'they weren't perfect' in order to talk about the founding of this country. The minute you say George Washington was awesome someone out there say 'he owned slaves' he is like a NAZI. BLa h blah blah blah blah. It has been a non-issue since 1865 and it was probably a non-issue before that.

Nobody is calling Washington a Nazi, get a hold of yourself, Nancy.

 

[Asclepias]

I see that this issue is going to be used to condemn America so I'm going to say that I don't care if Jefferson owned slaves and neither should anyone else.

I care. If I didnt know about it then I would assume that the founders of this country were credible people instead of the hypocritical wealthy white guys that keep you poor white guys waiting for the trickle down.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I actually said I believed that was true and just introducing it as a subject but I don't see how the naturalization act didn't halt immigration whatsoever into this country considering that the sedition act allowed non-citizens or recently arrived immigrants could be deported. I'm sure that was never used whatsoever by the government.

Some advice for you for the future based on what I've seen from your posts: What you believe is true, has regularly proven to not be true. So double-check from now on. Actually triple check. No way you'd fuck up 3/3 times.

I got some advice for you. Learn to think because just because the law didn't actually ban immigration doesn't actually mean that it didn't have an affect on it. You really are trying circumnavigate the more complex idea by disproving the not so complex statement. The law didn't actually ban immigration directly but who it kind of makes sense that if you make it harder to become a citizen and pair it with a law that allows you to deport non-citizens then wouldn't immigration be kind of stiffled to a certain degree?

No. You fucked up, looked stupid, and are now trying your best to backpedal. Own it and move on.

How so? You said there wasn't ANY law that banned immigration during the first fifteen years. That wasn't true because I pointed out the naturalization act which prolonged the naturlization of recent immigrants. Did or did not the law affect immigration into the United States and wasn't that the goal of the law in the first place?

Someone said I was wrong for saying that their was a law banning immigration. I pointed out the naturalization act. Boom! Accusation FALSE.