I'm sure they feel the same about you so everyone should be happy.Nobody gives a fuck what a bunch of liberooidal hack "historians" say about anything.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I'm sure they feel the same about you so everyone should be happy.Nobody gives a fuck what a bunch of liberooidal hack "historians" say about anything.
Can you honestly (sic) say that if George Wallace, Bull Conner, or Jeff Davis were alive today they would be Democrats?
I believe there's plenty of historical evidence that Lincoln did what he he did to save the union. While he may have opposed slavery as an individual, he could also have objected to the social and political equality of blacks and whites, fearing it would not be a good thing for the country. Perhaps he thought, like many, that although slaves should be freed, they should continue to "know their place" and not expect total equality.Are you saying Lincoln did not give an 1858 speech in pro-slavery Southern Illinois where he insisted that he opposed “bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races”? Since that is a historical fact I'm not the liar here.
Did Lincoln fight to end slavery or did he fight to maintain the union?
Not quite true. There is one group that has never assimilated AS A GROUPStill, the Irish were -- at one time -- among the poorest immigrants we ever got and the slowest to assimilate. It took 120 years
No, they would not. The Demonazi Party has changed, but not in ways you imagineCan you honestly (sic) say that if George Wallace, Bull Conner, or Jeff Davis were alive today they would be Democrats?
You mean not in ways you approve of. The Democrats have evolved just like I imagine.No, they would not. The Demonazi Party has changed, but not in ways you imagine
Outside globalists at the time wanted to divide our nation. And used slavery as a wedge to do just that. There was a lot of criticisms on slavery and it may have been eliminated within a decade if there was no civil war. The real financial power of the world is located in London. The Western Hemisphere was ripe for global interests. And a fiat currency was the prescription needed to make inroads in what would be the richest part of it. They failed. Until 1913. If you worked as a custodian before 1913 you earned what you worked for. After 1913, there was a middleman with the fiat currency. It eventually caused certain groups of employees to be overcompensated and destroyed industries here as they have been sent overseas. Progs will say the unions were good. They were. Until they got to greedy and held the nation to hostage and then it became the norm.Are you saying Lincoln did not give an 1858 speech in pro-slavery Southern Illinois where he insisted that he opposed “bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races”? Since that is a historical fact I'm not the liar here.
Did Lincoln fight to end slavery or did he fight to maintain the union?
I never know how to reply when people see a grand conspiracy in actions that were in response to real problems.Outside globalists at the time wanted to divide our nation. And used slavery as a wedge to do just that. There was a lot of criticisms on slavery and it may have been eliminated within a decade if there was no civil war. The real financial power of the world is located in London. The Western Hemisphere was ripe for global interests. And a fiat currency was the prescription needed to make inroads in what would be the richest part of it. They failed. Until 1913. If you worked as a custodian before 1913 you earned what you worked for. After 1913, there was a middleman with the fiat currency. It eventually caused certain groups of employees to be overcompensated and destroyed industries here as they have been sent overseas. Progs will say the unions were good. They were. Until they got to greedy and held the nation to hostage and then it became the norm.
Not quite true. There is one group that has never assimilated AS A GROUP
No, they would not. The Demonazi Party has changed, but not in ways you imagine
All of them including blacksHow many of those races had 4 million in slavery?
Well.....then, there is this:
Democrat activist
Linda Sarsour to Muslim Americans: Our Priority Is Not To Assimilate; It Is To Our People And Allah
I suspect many groups would agree. Hasidic Jews and Amish come to mind. You judge them the same way?
What percentage constitutes a "rife"? If you're worried about terrorism, it is the alt-right you should condemn.We need catalogue all the different sorts of lies you Democrats tell.
Which group, of the three, is rife with terrorists?
I know you don't care because you vote to guarantee nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism.
Disgusting anti-humanity slime you Democrats are.
What percentage constitutes a "rife"? If you're worried about terrorism, it is the alt-right you should condemn.
I suspect many groups would agree. Hasidic Jews and Amish come to mind. You judge them the same way?
Are you saying Lincoln did not give an 1858 speech in pro-slavery Southern Illinois where he insisted that he opposed “bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races”? Since that is a historical fact I'm not the liar here.
Did Lincoln fight to end slavery or did he fight to maintain the union?
"...it is the alt-right you should condemn."What percentage constitutes a "rife"? If you're worried about terrorism, it is the alt-right you should condemn.
Chattel slavery?Slavery was a part of the human condition for millennia...It was hardly unique to Murica.
Now take your nihilistic self-loathing elsewhere, kook.
What percentage constitutes a "rife"? If you're worried about terrorism, it is the alt-right you should condemn.