Is Racism Over Yet?

[Correll]

When a politicians words contradict his actions, what does that mean to you?

What does it mean to you when you claim someone is worthy of gratitude and then they say the opposite of what you claimed they were worthy of gratitude for?....

I never claimed that Lincoln was worthy of gratitude because of something he SAID, I said he (and the union soldiers) were worthy of gratitude because of something he/they DID.


Specifically ending slavery.


Nice attempt at moving the goal posts. The imagery might have distracted a less experienced poster.

Only an autistic cave monkey would expect me to be grateful for a result that came about from an action that wasnt motivated or conducted with my best interests at heart....

No, it's pretty much a normal and healthy response to appreciate a kindness done for you, even if the motivations were complex and varied.



That being said, no I do not expect such normal and health behavior from YOU, of course.

Thats where you silly ass white boys get confused. It wasnt a kindness.

Freeing people from slavery is not a kindness?

LOL!! Your hatred really makes you stupid. Or stupider, I should say.

 

[Asclepias]

What does it mean to you when you claim someone is worthy of gratitude and then they say the opposite of what you claimed they were worthy of gratitude for?....

I never claimed that Lincoln was worthy of gratitude because of something he SAID, I said he (and the union soldiers) were worthy of gratitude because of something he/they DID.


Specifically ending slavery.


Nice attempt at moving the goal posts. The imagery might have distracted a less experienced poster.

Only an autistic cave monkey would expect me to be grateful for a result that came about from an action that wasnt motivated or conducted with my best interests at heart....

No, it's pretty much a normal and healthy response to appreciate a kindness done for you, even if the motivations were complex and varied.



That being said, no I do not expect such normal and health behavior from YOU, of course.

Thats where you silly ass white boys get confused. It wasnt a kindness.

Freeing people from slavery is not a kindness?

LOL!! Your hatred really makes you stupid. Or stupider, I should say.

If it was a kindness then it would have happened before the civil war and before he tried to make slavery a non amendable right for each state.

 

[Correll]

You said all of that already, and I have seriously and honestly responded to each of those points already.


You focus on the quotes of Lincoln that supports your narrative of America as an Evul Racist place.


I focus on those that support my narrative of America as a place that has been actively changing itself for the better for a long time.


The difference is that my quotes match Lincoln's ACTIONS, while yours do not.


That is the central Truth that you are trying to avoid.

His actions were DEFAULT outcomes that would have transpired IN SPITE of his true beliefs.

Much like the invention of the electric light changed the dependence on candles and kerosene lamps, and the automobile changed the fact that horses were relied upon as the most common form of transportation.

The union being saved eventually changed the status of black slsves to black "non slsves"......not black FREE people.

Saving the union was the reason that the war was fought. It was NOT a "noble gesture" just to FREE the slaves, as you are determined to spin as such.

If white soldiers had fought a war strictly to FREE black slaves, there would have been anarchy in the streets, and you know it.

America WAS a RACIST land at that time and it was absolutely legal to marginalize non whites in every way, with immunity and impunity and it remained that way until the 1960"s.

Unlike you, I saw it and experienced some of ot firsthand. And it wasn't imaginary like the so called "anti white' discrimination that youf frequently whine about being a victim of today.

"Saving the Union" was the stated reason for the war being fought.


The South rebelled because their leadership believed that Lincoln would end slavery and their way of life.


Which is what happened.



The South believed that, because of the large and powerful anti-slavery movement in the nation as a whole, primarily in the North.


You say his actions were "Default" actions that would have occurred despite his "true beliefs".



The South rebelled BECAUSE they feared what he would do as President, because of what they believed his True Beliefs were.


The events that occurred, that led to the Choices that he had, and the Actions he choose, were caused BY his beliefs.


That is pretty much the OPPOSITE of default.

No, it is not. Lincoln's obvious belief in the inherent inferiority of the slaves that were freed BY DEFAULT due to his actions to
"Save the Union", does not qualify him for one iota of gratitude from the living black citizens of today.


Even an elementary school student knows that.

At BEST, Lincoln should be credited for keeping what was at he time, a universally racist nation whole.

Your attempt to glorify him as a benefactor of slaves who were viewed as subhuman by the vast majority of white Americans living in a RACIST country is noted as laughable and dismissed as foolish and idealistic.

There was nothing inherent in the act of preserving the Union that required the Freeing of the slaves.


You've done nothing to support that assertion.


That Lincoln does not meet your 21st century pc standards is notable only to how it reveals how close minded you are, to judge people centuries dead by modern standards.

Acutally freeing the slaves is what made the North win you idiot. Using the slave topic as one of moral authority both kept european powers from supporting the south and supplied the north with soldiers eager to kill their white oppressors.

1. You assume that was the ONLY way to keep the European powers out of the war.

2. And even without the numbers of the blacks, the Union army would have still outnumbered the Southern Army by more than 2 to 1.

 

[Asclepias]

His actions were DEFAULT outcomes that would have transpired IN SPITE of his true beliefs.

Much like the invention of the electric light changed the dependence on candles and kerosene lamps, and the automobile changed the fact that horses were relied upon as the most common form of transportation.

The union being saved eventually changed the status of black slsves to black "non slsves"......not black FREE people.

Saving the union was the reason that the war was fought. It was NOT a "noble gesture" just to FREE the slaves, as you are determined to spin as such.

If white soldiers had fought a war strictly to FREE black slaves, there would have been anarchy in the streets, and you know it.

America WAS a RACIST land at that time and it was absolutely legal to marginalize non whites in every way, with immunity and impunity and it remained that way until the 1960"s.

Unlike you, I saw it and experienced some of ot firsthand. And it wasn't imaginary like the so called "anti white' discrimination that youf frequently whine about being a victim of today.

"Saving the Union" was the stated reason for the war being fought.


The South rebelled because their leadership believed that Lincoln would end slavery and their way of life.


Which is what happened.



The South believed that, because of the large and powerful anti-slavery movement in the nation as a whole, primarily in the North.


You say his actions were "Default" actions that would have occurred despite his "true beliefs".



The South rebelled BECAUSE they feared what he would do as President, because of what they believed his True Beliefs were.


The events that occurred, that led to the Choices that he had, and the Actions he choose, were caused BY his beliefs.


That is pretty much the OPPOSITE of default.

No, it is not. Lincoln's obvious belief in the inherent inferiority of the slaves that were freed BY DEFAULT due to his actions to
"Save the Union", does not qualify him for one iota of gratitude from the living black citizens of today.


Even an elementary school student knows that.

At BEST, Lincoln should be credited for keeping what was at he time, a universally racist nation whole.

Your attempt to glorify him as a benefactor of slaves who were viewed as subhuman by the vast majority of white Americans living in a RACIST country is noted as laughable and dismissed as foolish and idealistic.

There was nothing inherent in the act of preserving the Union that required the Freeing of the slaves.


You've done nothing to support that assertion.


That Lincoln does not meet your 21st century pc standards is notable only to how it reveals how close minded you are, to judge people centuries dead by modern standards.

Acutally freeing the slaves is what made the North win you idiot. Using the slave topic as one of moral authority both kept european powers from supporting the south and supplied the north with soldiers eager to kill their white oppressors.

1. You assume that was the ONLY way to keep the European powers out of the war.

2. And even without the numbers of the blacks, the Union army would have still outnumbered the Southern Army by more than 2 to 1.

Until you can prove there was another viable option other than that then your assumption carries no weight.

Has nothing to do with my point. Until Blacks came the north was getting their asses kicked.

 

[Correll]

You said all of that already, and I have seriously and honestly responded to each of those points already.


You focus on the quotes of Lincoln that supports your narrative of America as an Evul Racist place.


I focus on those that support my narrative of America as a place that has been actively changing itself for the better for a long time.


The difference is that my quotes match Lincoln's ACTIONS, while yours do not.


That is the central Truth that you are trying to avoid.

His actions were DEFAULT outcomes that would have transpired IN SPITE of his true beliefs.

Much like the invention of the electric light changed the dependence on candles and kerosene lamps, and the automobile changed the fact that horses were relied upon as the most common form of transportation.

The union being saved eventually changed the status of black slsves to black "non slsves"......not black FREE people.

Saving the union was the reason that the war was fought. It was NOT a "noble gesture" just to FREE the slaves, as you are determined to spin as such.

If white soldiers had fought a war strictly to FREE black slaves, there would have been anarchy in the streets, and you know it.

America WAS a RACIST land at that time and it was absolutely legal to marginalize non whites in every way, with immunity and impunity and it remained that way until the 1960"s.

Unlike you, I saw it and experienced some of ot firsthand. And it wasn't imaginary like the so called "anti white' discrimination that youf frequently whine about being a victim of today.

"Saving the Union" was the stated reason for the war being fought.


The South rebelled because their leadership believed that Lincoln would end slavery and their way of life.


Which is what happened.



The South believed that, because of the large and powerful anti-slavery movement in the nation as a whole, primarily in the North.


You say his actions were "Default" actions that would have occurred despite his "true beliefs".



The South rebelled BECAUSE they feared what he would do as President, because of what they believed his True Beliefs were.


The events that occurred, that led to the Choices that he had, and the Actions he choose, were caused BY his beliefs.


That is pretty much the OPPOSITE of default.

We can easily put your bullshit to bed by answering a simple question. When Lincoln first freed the enslaved why did he not free the enslaved in states that were still with the Union?

I haven't read any of Lincoln's words or writings on that subject.


I would think the most likely reasons would be A. he did not have the legal power to revoke property rights of American citizens who were not in rebellion and B. a desire to not drive his allies away.



Do you have information to the contrary? How does any of that negate his actions in ending slavery?

Thats why I keep saying youre a fucking idiot. You dont read shit by your own admission but you offer up opinions like they actually mean something.

YOu asked a question on my opinion on Lincoln's reasons for a certain action.


I gave it.


You haven't cited anything he wrote or said on that action to dispute my opinion on the matter.


You were acting like your question would refute my previous position. It certainly had not done so yet.


Did you have an actual point to make?

 

[Asclepias]

His actions were DEFAULT outcomes that would have transpired IN SPITE of his true beliefs.

Much like the invention of the electric light changed the dependence on candles and kerosene lamps, and the automobile changed the fact that horses were relied upon as the most common form of transportation.

The union being saved eventually changed the status of black slsves to black "non slsves"......not black FREE people.

Saving the union was the reason that the war was fought. It was NOT a "noble gesture" just to FREE the slaves, as you are determined to spin as such.

If white soldiers had fought a war strictly to FREE black slaves, there would have been anarchy in the streets, and you know it.

America WAS a RACIST land at that time and it was absolutely legal to marginalize non whites in every way, with immunity and impunity and it remained that way until the 1960"s.

Unlike you, I saw it and experienced some of ot firsthand. And it wasn't imaginary like the so called "anti white' discrimination that youf frequently whine about being a victim of today.

"Saving the Union" was the stated reason for the war being fought.


The South rebelled because their leadership believed that Lincoln would end slavery and their way of life.


Which is what happened.



The South believed that, because of the large and powerful anti-slavery movement in the nation as a whole, primarily in the North.


You say his actions were "Default" actions that would have occurred despite his "true beliefs".



The South rebelled BECAUSE they feared what he would do as President, because of what they believed his True Beliefs were.


The events that occurred, that led to the Choices that he had, and the Actions he choose, were caused BY his beliefs.


That is pretty much the OPPOSITE of default.

We can easily put your bullshit to bed by answering a simple question. When Lincoln first freed the enslaved why did he not free the enslaved in states that were still with the Union?

I haven't read any of Lincoln's words or writings on that subject.


I would think the most likely reasons would be A. he did not have the legal power to revoke property rights of American citizens who were not in rebellion and B. a desire to not drive his allies away.



Do you have information to the contrary? How does any of that negate his actions in ending slavery?

Thats why I keep saying youre a fucking idiot. You dont read shit by your own admission but you offer up opinions like they actually mean something.

YOu asked a question on my opinion on Lincoln's reasons for a certain action.


I gave it.


You haven't cited anything he wrote or said on that action to dispute my opinion on the matter.


You were acting like your question would refute my previous position. It certainly had not done so yet.


Did you have an actual point to make?

I didnt ask for your opinion. I asked you to answer the question. No where in my question did the word opinion show up.

 

[Correll]

I never claimed that Lincoln was worthy of gratitude because of something he SAID, I said he (and the union soldiers) were worthy of gratitude because of something he/they DID.


Specifically ending slavery.


Nice attempt at moving the goal posts. The imagery might have distracted a less experienced poster.

Only an autistic cave monkey would expect me to be grateful for a result that came about from an action that wasnt motivated or conducted with my best interests at heart....

No, it's pretty much a normal and healthy response to appreciate a kindness done for you, even if the motivations were complex and varied.



That being said, no I do not expect such normal and health behavior from YOU, of course.

Thats where you silly ass white boys get confused. It wasnt a kindness.

Freeing people from slavery is not a kindness?

LOL!! Your hatred really makes you stupid. Or stupider, I should say.

If it was a kindness then it would have happened before the civil war and before he tried to make slavery a non amendable right for each state.

He didn't have the power to do it, before the war.


NOthing about when it occurred makes it NOT a kindness. Sure, being freed sooner rather than later would be kindER, but that does not mean that being freed later is not still a kindness.

 

[Asclepias]

Only an autistic cave monkey would expect me to be grateful for a result that came about from an action that wasnt motivated or conducted with my best interests at heart....

No, it's pretty much a normal and healthy response to appreciate a kindness done for you, even if the motivations were complex and varied.



That being said, no I do not expect such normal and health behavior from YOU, of course.

Thats where you silly ass white boys get confused. It wasnt a kindness.

Freeing people from slavery is not a kindness?

LOL!! Your hatred really makes you stupid. Or stupider, I should say.

If it was a kindness then it would have happened before the civil war and before he tried to make slavery a non amendable right for each state.

He didn't have the power to do it, before the war.


NOthing about when it occurred makes it NOT a kindness. Sure, being freed sooner rather than later would be kindER, but that does not mean that being freed later is not still a kindness.

He had the power to do it at the beginning of the war. He waited 2 years.

There are many things that make it not a kindness. I already pointed out his views on Blacks which prove it wasnt a kindness.

 

[Correll]

"Saving the Union" was the stated reason for the war being fought.


The South rebelled because their leadership believed that Lincoln would end slavery and their way of life.


Which is what happened.



The South believed that, because of the large and powerful anti-slavery movement in the nation as a whole, primarily in the North.


You say his actions were "Default" actions that would have occurred despite his "true beliefs".



The South rebelled BECAUSE they feared what he would do as President, because of what they believed his True Beliefs were.


The events that occurred, that led to the Choices that he had, and the Actions he choose, were caused BY his beliefs.


That is pretty much the OPPOSITE of default.

No, it is not. Lincoln's obvious belief in the inherent inferiority of the slaves that were freed BY DEFAULT due to his actions to
"Save the Union", does not qualify him for one iota of gratitude from the living black citizens of today.


Even an elementary school student knows that.

At BEST, Lincoln should be credited for keeping what was at he time, a universally racist nation whole.

Your attempt to glorify him as a benefactor of slaves who were viewed as subhuman by the vast majority of white Americans living in a RACIST country is noted as laughable and dismissed as foolish and idealistic.

There was nothing inherent in the act of preserving the Union that required the Freeing of the slaves.


You've done nothing to support that assertion.


That Lincoln does not meet your 21st century pc standards is notable only to how it reveals how close minded you are, to judge people centuries dead by modern standards.

Acutally freeing the slaves is what made the North win you idiot. Using the slave topic as one of moral authority both kept european powers from supporting the south and supplied the north with soldiers eager to kill their white oppressors.

1. You assume that was the ONLY way to keep the European powers out of the war.

2. And even without the numbers of the blacks, the Union army would have still outnumbered the Southern Army by more than 2 to 1.

Until you can prove there was another viable option other than that then your assumption carries no weight.

Has nothing to do with my point. Until Blacks came the north was getting their asses kicked.

1 "Prove"? Prove to a dishonest partisan racist hack like you? LOL!

2. The blacks in the Union army served well, but were a small minority of over all troops and even less of fighting troops.

 

[Correll]

No, it's pretty much a normal and healthy response to appreciate a kindness done for you, even if the motivations were complex and varied.



That being said, no I do not expect such normal and health behavior from YOU, of course.

Thats where you silly ass white boys get confused. It wasnt a kindness.

Freeing people from slavery is not a kindness?

LOL!! Your hatred really makes you stupid. Or stupider, I should say.

If it was a kindness then it would have happened before the civil war and before he tried to make slavery a non amendable right for each state.

He didn't have the power to do it, before the war.


NOthing about when it occurred makes it NOT a kindness. Sure, being freed sooner rather than later would be kindER, but that does not mean that being freed later is not still a kindness.

He had the power to do it at the beginning of the war. He waited 2 years.

There are many things that make it not a kindness. I already pointed out his views on Blacks which prove it wasnt a kindness.

1. He wanted to wait to he had a big victory, so that it would not look like a sign of weakness.


2. Freeing someone from slavery is still a kindness, even if you still consider them inferior. There is nothing in the definition of kindness that restricts it to acts done to people you consider an equal.

 

[the Beast]

Slavery is not best for everyone in planet earth as known ...

 

[katsteve2012]

katsteve2012 Current fit America is more as Russia with toughless criminal and many are hockey traditions from both whites and nigga and also as south EU and UK Christians with thems to trust with soccer are the best game for those Catholic americans ...

Sorry, but I am not quite sure what you are saying.

 

[IM2]

Thats where you silly ass white boys get confused. It wasnt a kindness.

Freeing people from slavery is not a kindness?

LOL!! Your hatred really makes you stupid. Or stupider, I should say.

If it was a kindness then it would have happened before the civil war and before he tried to make slavery a non amendable right for each state.

He didn't have the power to do it, before the war.


NOthing about when it occurred makes it NOT a kindness. Sure, being freed sooner rather than later would be kindER, but that does not mean that being freed later is not still a kindness.

He had the power to do it at the beginning of the war. He waited 2 years.

There are many things that make it not a kindness. I already pointed out his views on Blacks which prove it wasnt a kindness.

1. He wanted to wait to he had a big victory, so that it would not look like a sign of weakness.


2. Freeing someone from slavery is still a kindness, even if you still consider them inferior. There is nothing in the definition of kindness that restricts it to acts done to people you consider an equal.

Fuck that. Slavery never should have be here. It Is not kindness to free people from a thing you should never have done.

 

[ValerieYanez]

Freeing people from slavery is not a kindness?

LOL!! Your hatred really makes you stupid. Or stupider, I should say.

If it was a kindness then it would have happened before the civil war and before he tried to make slavery a non amendable right for each state.

He didn't have the power to do it, before the war.


NOthing about when it occurred makes it NOT a kindness. Sure, being freed sooner rather than later would be kindER, but that does not mean that being freed later is not still a kindness.

He had the power to do it at the beginning of the war. He waited 2 years.

There are many things that make it not a kindness. I already pointed out his views on Blacks which prove it wasnt a kindness.

1. He wanted to wait to he had a big victory, so that it would not look like a sign of weakness.


2. Freeing someone from slavery is still a kindness, even if you still consider them inferior. There is nothing in the definition of kindness that restricts it to acts done to people you consider an equal.

Fuck that. Slavery never should have be here. It Is not kindness to free people from a thing you should never have done.

Do you think it’s kind to hate white people? Do you want to enslave white people?

 

[bgrouse]

Freeing people from slavery is not a kindness?

LOL!! Your hatred really makes you stupid. Or stupider, I should say.

If it was a kindness then it would have happened before the civil war and before he tried to make slavery a non amendable right for each state.

He didn't have the power to do it, before the war.


NOthing about when it occurred makes it NOT a kindness. Sure, being freed sooner rather than later would be kindER, but that does not mean that being freed later is not still a kindness.

He had the power to do it at the beginning of the war. He waited 2 years.

There are many things that make it not a kindness. I already pointed out his views on Blacks which prove it wasnt a kindness.

1. He wanted to wait to he had a big victory, so that it would not look like a sign of weakness.


2. Freeing someone from slavery is still a kindness, even if you still consider them inferior. There is nothing in the definition of kindness that restricts it to acts done to people you consider an equal.

Fuck that. Slavery never should have be here.

I totally agree. They should have left the shitskins to die in apefreaka.

 

[Asclepias]

Thats where you silly ass white boys get confused. It wasnt a kindness.

Freeing people from slavery is not a kindness?

LOL!! Your hatred really makes you stupid. Or stupider, I should say.

If it was a kindness then it would have happened before the civil war and before he tried to make slavery a non amendable right for each state.

He didn't have the power to do it, before the war.


NOthing about when it occurred makes it NOT a kindness. Sure, being freed sooner rather than later would be kindER, but that does not mean that being freed later is not still a kindness.

He had the power to do it at the beginning of the war. He waited 2 years.

There are many things that make it not a kindness. I already pointed out his views on Blacks which prove it wasnt a kindness.

1. He wanted to wait to he had a big victory, so that it would not look like a sign of weakness.


2. Freeing someone from slavery is still a kindness, even if you still consider them inferior. There is nothing in the definition of kindness that restricts it to acts done to people you consider an equal.

If thats what you want to believe go ahead. Doesnt change my mind that he was a racist and used the enslaved as a tool to win the war and get back at the confederate losers

 

[Asclepias]

If it was a kindness then it would have happened before the civil war and before he tried to make slavery a non amendable right for each state.

He didn't have the power to do it, before the war.


NOthing about when it occurred makes it NOT a kindness. Sure, being freed sooner rather than later would be kindER, but that does not mean that being freed later is not still a kindness.

He had the power to do it at the beginning of the war. He waited 2 years.

There are many things that make it not a kindness. I already pointed out his views on Blacks which prove it wasnt a kindness.

1. He wanted to wait to he had a big victory, so that it would not look like a sign of weakness.


2. Freeing someone from slavery is still a kindness, even if you still consider them inferior. There is nothing in the definition of kindness that restricts it to acts done to people you consider an equal.

Fuck that. Slavery never should have be here. It Is not kindness to free people from a thing you should never have done.

Do you think it’s kind to hate white people? Do you want to enslave white people?

What does that have to do with what he said? Are you deflecting?

 

[Yarddog]

Freeing people from slavery is not a kindness?

LOL!! Your hatred really makes you stupid. Or stupider, I should say.

If it was a kindness then it would have happened before the civil war and before he tried to make slavery a non amendable right for each state.

He didn't have the power to do it, before the war.


NOthing about when it occurred makes it NOT a kindness. Sure, being freed sooner rather than later would be kindER, but that does not mean that being freed later is not still a kindness.

He had the power to do it at the beginning of the war. He waited 2 years.

There are many things that make it not a kindness. I already pointed out his views on Blacks which prove it wasnt a kindness.

1. He wanted to wait to he had a big victory, so that it would not look like a sign of weakness.


2. Freeing someone from slavery is still a kindness, even if you still consider them inferior. There is nothing in the definition of kindness that restricts it to acts done to people you consider an equal.

Fuck that. Slavery never should have be here. It Is not kindness to free people from a thing you should never have done.

But many of the people who helped in the effort to free slaves were not the same ones.. who enslaved them in the first place. So what about the white boys who lived in europe at the time who hopped on a ship, sailed over here to go to war, because they heard there was a war going on to free the slaves and that would be a worthy cause.
I'm sorry, you cant tell me "I" enslaved your people because I was born white. Are you guilt of a crime commited by your great grandfather? or do you get to be born into this world without guilt. We create our own guilt by our own actions.

 

[ValerieYanez]

He didn't have the power to do it, before the war.


NOthing about when it occurred makes it NOT a kindness. Sure, being freed sooner rather than later would be kindER, but that does not mean that being freed later is not still a kindness.

He had the power to do it at the beginning of the war. He waited 2 years.

There are many things that make it not a kindness. I already pointed out his views on Blacks which prove it wasnt a kindness.

1. He wanted to wait to he had a big victory, so that it would not look like a sign of weakness.


2. Freeing someone from slavery is still a kindness, even if you still consider them inferior. There is nothing in the definition of kindness that restricts it to acts done to people you consider an equal.

Fuck that. Slavery never should have be here. It Is not kindness to free people from a thing you should never have done.

Do you think it’s kind to hate white people? Do you want to enslave white people?

What does that have to do with what he said? Are you deflecting?

No not deflecting. What doesn’t that have to do with it?

 

[Asclepias]

He had the power to do it at the beginning of the war. He waited 2 years.

There are many things that make it not a kindness. I already pointed out his views on Blacks which prove it wasnt a kindness.

1. He wanted to wait to he had a big victory, so that it would not look like a sign of weakness.


2. Freeing someone from slavery is still a kindness, even if you still consider them inferior. There is nothing in the definition of kindness that restricts it to acts done to people you consider an equal.

Fuck that. Slavery never should have be here. It Is not kindness to free people from a thing you should never have done.

Do you think it’s kind to hate white people? Do you want to enslave white people?

What does that have to do with what he said? Are you deflecting?

No not deflecting. What doesn’t that have to do with it?

You never addressed the point. Its not kindness to do something that by the constitution should have already been done. Why would you ask if he wants to enslave whites? What does one have to do with the other?