"What To The Slave Is The 4th Of July?"

[IM2]

This is the same idiot who has made consistent claims of anti white discrimination and has yet to support it.

I've documented it repeatedly, and you are just a liar.

You have not shown anything that specifically states that whites are to be completely denied, or even partially denied, of anything.

 

[IM2]

There was no representation for Blacks because that was tbe intentional outcome.

Yes, we've repeatedly covered that point, over and over and over again. You seem to think that that means something.

The preservation of the union was first and foremost, and Americas new industrialized business model was set for the future.

The Abolitionist were motivated by morality. Your need to minimize their heroism is you being a small minded racist person.

As for me wasting my own time attempting to educate you on the subject of Jim Crow, there are a plethora of resources on the internet that you can refer to on your own time.

Got it, you can't support your radical claim, but you stand by it, cause it really smears America and white people.

You're a fool. And your default rant when someone doesn't accept your crackpot reasoning is always some stupid, infantile statement about "poor maligned white people"

I have not minimized the efforts of REAL abolitionists at all, and you know it. Lincoln is who I am referring to, and he was not one of them, and there is not a credible source out there that validates that he was .

It's amusing how you invest so much effort into rewriting what I state in order to facilitate the nonsense that you post.

As I told you before, it is not incumbent upon me to initiate any corrective action to help you with your misinformed ignorance. I am not going to spoon feed you information that you refuse to look for on your own.

Nothing in your post does anything to support your claims.

Calling me names? Does not support. IT is just you being an ass.

Repeating yourself? Does not support. It is just a logical fallacy.

Refusing to offer any support for your claim(s)? Obviously does not support. Just you being dishonest and cowardly.

Im not calling you anything that does not describe your obtuse thought process perfectly.

You have not presented anything in this thread except your warped belief that Lincoln was as anti slavery as any abolitionist, and a misinformed persistence that the white males who voted for Lincoln somehow deserve accolades for being "honorable" in doing so, and frankly, Correll, that equates to some ridiculous bullshit that deserves ridicule.

And lastly, as far as me wasting my time presenting an argument to the likes of you about Jim Crow?

What I am refusing to do is to present readily available facts to someone that it would be a pointless expenditure of my time to do so with.

That is the same as a student showing up to school and refusing to do any homework.

So, your position is that people who were anti-slavery, back when being anti-slavery could, and did, get you killed, deserved no respect for their principled stand for doing the right thing.

That is an indefensible position.


That you stand by it shows you to be completely corrupt and motivated not by your stated reasons.

I am not going t speak for katsteve, he is more than capable, But I am not going to credit people or fixing a problem they created. I am not going to give credit to people who created a mess that did not have to happen or if we even go to your false news, a war they died in fighting because of the problem thy created. Nobody is giving those brave German soldiers credit for fighting and dying in WW2 and no one white is going to get credit from me about this. What is corrupt, immoral and indefensible is you trying to make up a lie in order to tell us how we should be grateful to ****** because he died to free us from slavery.

Now then since your punk ass posts up huge pictures about how you don't have any white guilt, then your ***** as will deal with the fact that you get no black gratefulness for or credit given to the idiots who made slavery legal and their descendants who maintained that mistake who died for it.

 

[katsteve2012]

Yes, we've repeatedly covered that point, over and over and over again. You seem to think that that means something.

The Abolitionist were motivated by morality. Your need to minimize their heroism is you being a small minded racist person.


Got it, you can't support your radical claim, but you stand by it, cause it really smears America and white people.

You're a fool. And your default rant when someone doesn't accept your crackpot reasoning is always some stupid, infantile statement about "poor maligned white people"

I have not minimized the efforts of REAL abolitionists at all, and you know it. Lincoln is who I am referring to, and he was not one of them, and there is not a credible source out there that validates that he was .

It's amusing how you invest so much effort into rewriting what I state in order to facilitate the nonsense that you post.

As I told you before, it is not incumbent upon me to initiate any corrective action to help you with your misinformed ignorance. I am not going to spoon feed you information that you refuse to look for on your own.

Nothing in your post does anything to support your claims.

Calling me names? Does not support. IT is just you being an ass.

Repeating yourself? Does not support. It is just a logical fallacy.

Refusing to offer any support for your claim(s)? Obviously does not support. Just you being dishonest and cowardly.

Im not calling you anything that does not describe your obtuse thought process perfectly.

You have not presented anything in this thread except your warped belief that Lincoln was as anti slavery as any abolitionist, and a misinformed persistence that the white males who voted for Lincoln somehow deserve accolades for being "honorable" in doing so, and frankly, Correll, that equates to some ridiculous bullshit that deserves ridicule.

And lastly, as far as me wasting my time presenting an argument to the likes of you about Jim Crow?

What I am refusing to do is to present readily available facts to someone that it would be a pointless expenditure of my time to do so with.

That is the same as a student showing up to school and refusing to do any homework.

So, your position is that people who were anti-slavery, back when being anti-slavery could, and did, get you killed, deserved no respect for their principled stand for doing the right thing.

That is an indefensible position.


That you stand by it shows you to be completely corrupt and motivated not by your stated reasons.

I am not going t speak for katsteve, he is more than capable, But I am not going to credit people or fixing a problem they created. I am not going to give credit to people who created a mess that did not have to happen or if we even go to your false news, a war they died in fighting because of the problem thy created. Nobody is giving those brave German soldiers credit for fighting and dying in WW2 and no one white is going to get credit from me about this. What is corrupt, immoral and indefensible is you trying to make up a lie in order to tell us how we should be grateful to ****** because he died to free us from slavery.

Now then since your punk ass posts up huge pictures about how you don't have any white guilt, then your ***** as will deal with the fact that you get no black gratefulness for or credit given to the idiots who made slavery legal and their descendants who maintained that mistake who died for it.

Well said.

 

[katsteve2012]

Yes, we've repeatedly covered that point, over and over and over again. You seem to think that that means something.

The Abolitionist were motivated by morality. Your need to minimize their heroism is you being a small minded racist person.


Got it, you can't support your radical claim, but you stand by it, cause it really smears America and white people.

You're a fool. And your default rant when someone doesn't accept your crackpot reasoning is always some stupid, infantile statement about "poor maligned white people"

I have not minimized the efforts of REAL abolitionists at all, and you know it. Lincoln is who I am referring to, and he was not one of them, and there is not a credible source out there that validates that he was .

It's amusing how you invest so much effort into rewriting what I state in order to facilitate the nonsense that you post.

As I told you before, it is not incumbent upon me to initiate any corrective action to help you with your misinformed ignorance. I am not going to spoon feed you information that you refuse to look for on your own.

Nothing in your post does anything to support your claims.

Calling me names? Does not support. IT is just you being an ass.

Repeating yourself? Does not support. It is just a logical fallacy.

Refusing to offer any support for your claim(s)? Obviously does not support. Just you being dishonest and cowardly.

Im not calling you anything that does not describe your obtuse thought process perfectly.

You have not presented anything in this thread except your warped belief that Lincoln was as anti slavery as any abolitionist, and a misinformed persistence that the white males who voted for Lincoln somehow deserve accolades for being "honorable" in doing so, and frankly, Correll, that equates to some ridiculous bullshit that deserves ridicule.

And lastly, as far as me wasting my time presenting an argument to the likes of you about Jim Crow?

What I am refusing to do is to present readily available facts to someone that it would be a pointless expenditure of my time to do so with.

That is the same as a student showing up to school and refusing to do any homework.

So, your position is that people who were anti-slavery, back when being anti-slavery could, and did, get you killed, deserved no respect for their principled stand for doing the right thing.

That is an indefensible position.


That you stand by it shows you to be completely corrupt and motivated not by your stated reasons.

I am not going t speak for katsteve, he is more than capable, But I am not going to credit people or fixing a problem they created. I am not going to give credit to people who created a mess that did not have to happen or if we even go to your false news, a war they died in fighting because of the problem thy created. Nobody is giving those brave German soldiers credit for fighting and dying in WW2 and no one white is going to get credit from me about this. What is corrupt, immoral and indefensible is you trying to make up a lie in order to tell us how we should be grateful to ****** because he died to free us from slavery.

Now then since your punk ass posts up huge pictures about how you don't have any white guilt, then your ***** as will deal with the fact that you get no black gratefulness for or credit given to the idiots who made slavery legal and their descendants who maintained that mistake who died for it.

For your interest. The link below is to book that my grandmother gave me a few years before she passed at almost 100 years of age. She used to talk to me for hours about how Jim Crow was just as bad as slavery and many of her stories were passed on to her from her own parents and grandparents.

The New York Times: Book Review Search Article

 

[IM2]

You're a fool. And your default rant when someone doesn't accept your crackpot reasoning is always some stupid, infantile statement about "poor maligned white people"

I have not minimized the efforts of REAL abolitionists at all, and you know it. Lincoln is who I am referring to, and he was not one of them, and there is not a credible source out there that validates that he was .

It's amusing how you invest so much effort into rewriting what I state in order to facilitate the nonsense that you post.

As I told you before, it is not incumbent upon me to initiate any corrective action to help you with your misinformed ignorance. I am not going to spoon feed you information that you refuse to look for on your own.

Nothing in your post does anything to support your claims.

Calling me names? Does not support. IT is just you being an ass.

Repeating yourself? Does not support. It is just a logical fallacy.

Refusing to offer any support for your claim(s)? Obviously does not support. Just you being dishonest and cowardly.

Im not calling you anything that does not describe your obtuse thought process perfectly.

You have not presented anything in this thread except your warped belief that Lincoln was as anti slavery as any abolitionist, and a misinformed persistence that the white males who voted for Lincoln somehow deserve accolades for being "honorable" in doing so, and frankly, Correll, that equates to some ridiculous bullshit that deserves ridicule.

And lastly, as far as me wasting my time presenting an argument to the likes of you about Jim Crow?

What I am refusing to do is to present readily available facts to someone that it would be a pointless expenditure of my time to do so with.

That is the same as a student showing up to school and refusing to do any homework.

So, your position is that people who were anti-slavery, back when being anti-slavery could, and did, get you killed, deserved no respect for their principled stand for doing the right thing.

That is an indefensible position.


That you stand by it shows you to be completely corrupt and motivated not by your stated reasons.

I am not going t speak for katsteve, he is more than capable, But I am not going to credit people or fixing a problem they created. I am not going to give credit to people who created a mess that did not have to happen or if we even go to your false news, a war they died in fighting because of the problem thy created. Nobody is giving those brave German soldiers credit for fighting and dying in WW2 and no one white is going to get credit from me about this. What is corrupt, immoral and indefensible is you trying to make up a lie in order to tell us how we should be grateful to ****** because he died to free us from slavery.

Now then since your punk ass posts up huge pictures about how you don't have any white guilt, then your ***** as will deal with the fact that you get no black gratefulness for or credit given to the idiots who made slavery legal and their descendants who maintained that mistake who died for it.

For your interest. The link below is to book that my grandmother gave me a few years before she passed at almost 100 years of age. She used to talk to me for hours about how Jim Crow was just as bad as slavery and many of her stories were passed on to her from her own parents and grandparents.

The New York Times: Book Review Search Article

Thank you.

 

[Correll]

Yes, we've repeatedly covered that point, over and over and over again. You seem to think that that means something.

The Abolitionist were motivated by morality. Your need to minimize their heroism is you being a small minded racist person.


Got it, you can't support your radical claim, but you stand by it, cause it really smears America and white people.

You're a fool. And your default rant when someone doesn't accept your crackpot reasoning is always some stupid, infantile statement about "poor maligned white people"

I have not minimized the efforts of REAL abolitionists at all, and you know it. Lincoln is who I am referring to, and he was not one of them, and there is not a credible source out there that validates that he was .

It's amusing how you invest so much effort into rewriting what I state in order to facilitate the nonsense that you post.

As I told you before, it is not incumbent upon me to initiate any corrective action to help you with your misinformed ignorance. I am not going to spoon feed you information that you refuse to look for on your own.

Nothing in your post does anything to support your claims.

Calling me names? Does not support. IT is just you being an ass.

Repeating yourself? Does not support. It is just a logical fallacy.

Refusing to offer any support for your claim(s)? Obviously does not support. Just you being dishonest and cowardly.

Im not calling you anything that does not describe your obtuse thought process perfectly.

You have not presented anything in this thread except your warped belief that Lincoln was as anti slavery as any abolitionist, and a misinformed persistence that the white males who voted for Lincoln somehow deserve accolades for being "honorable" in doing so, and frankly, Correll, that equates to some ridiculous bullshit that deserves ridicule.

And lastly, as far as me wasting my time presenting an argument to the likes of you about Jim Crow?

What I am refusing to do is to present readily available facts to someone that it would be a pointless expenditure of my time to do so with.

That is the same as a student showing up to school and refusing to do any homework.

So, your position is that people who were anti-slavery, back when being anti-slavery could, and did, get you killed, deserved no respect for their principled stand for doing the right thing.

That is an indefensible position.


That you stand by it shows you to be completely corrupt and motivated not by your stated reasons.

Are you serious? I did not make a sweeping statement as you are Implying.


I did not even state that Lincoln was not anti slsvery.

I stated thst his reasons for being anti slavery were not completely based on "morality" as you claim, and I also do not believe that every one of those who voted fof him were anti slavery. Some but not all.

You hsve a comprehension issue.

1. What other reason than the morality of it, would be significant for Lincoln?

2. Sure there were other issues, but slavery was the big one. And tariffs were just another aspect of the north south conflict.

 

[Correll]

I've offered Lincoln statements about being radically anti-slavery.

Katsteve has offered Lincoln statements about not being anti-slavery and being about preserving the union.


I've pointed out that Lincoln's statements about not being anti-slavery were made at a time when he was trying to preserve the union though diplomacy, or lying, and his anti-slavery ones were made when he was under no duress.


Also, I've pointed out that LIncoln's ACTIONS, support the idea that he was anti-slavery.

IE, he did end slavery.


Katsteve response is to call me names and repeat his claims over and over again.

You are the one who repeated claims over and over again, not katsteve. Lincoln was not radically anti slavery.

Your major mistake here is that you are trying to argue a lie with 2 blacks who have a full understanding of this situation.

Your assessment is simply incorrect.

In the post you just hit the reply button to, I explained how I supported my claims. Something katsteve has not been able to do.

You, like him, failed to respond to my supporting arguments with anything beyond a unsupported denial.


You two being black is irrelevant .

What you call support is non factual garbage. Now, since everyone knows what Jim Crow and black codes entailed, no one needs to provide you with supporting evidence to back up a statement that both were just a bad as slavery.

Yes, you do, or be revealed as an ass who just says shit and can't back it up.

I won't be playing your childish game of prove what you say and because I don't waste the time to show your ass what everybody knows that I can't back up what I say.

Jim Crow/Black codes/American apartheid was just as bad as slavery.

Says the man that can't back up what he claims but stands by it anyways.

Because it serves his purpose of deconstructing America.

 

[Correll]

This is the same idiot who has made consistent claims of anti white discrimination and has yet to support it.

I've documented it repeatedly, and you are just a liar.

You have not shown anything that specifically states that whites are to be completely denied, or even partially denied, of anything.

Nope, I've just documented that the effect of the various efforts to discrimination in favor of blacks, results in discrimination AGAINST whites.

Your request to see, stated in plain text, open and formal discrimination is just a dodge.

 

[Correll]

Yes, we've repeatedly covered that point, over and over and over again. You seem to think that that means something.

The Abolitionist were motivated by morality. Your need to minimize their heroism is you being a small minded racist person.


Got it, you can't support your radical claim, but you stand by it, cause it really smears America and white people.

You're a fool. And your default rant when someone doesn't accept your crackpot reasoning is always some stupid, infantile statement about "poor maligned white people"

I have not minimized the efforts of REAL abolitionists at all, and you know it. Lincoln is who I am referring to, and he was not one of them, and there is not a credible source out there that validates that he was .

It's amusing how you invest so much effort into rewriting what I state in order to facilitate the nonsense that you post.

As I told you before, it is not incumbent upon me to initiate any corrective action to help you with your misinformed ignorance. I am not going to spoon feed you information that you refuse to look for on your own.

Nothing in your post does anything to support your claims.

Calling me names? Does not support. IT is just you being an ass.

Repeating yourself? Does not support. It is just a logical fallacy.

Refusing to offer any support for your claim(s)? Obviously does not support. Just you being dishonest and cowardly.

Im not calling you anything that does not describe your obtuse thought process perfectly.

You have not presented anything in this thread except your warped belief that Lincoln was as anti slavery as any abolitionist, and a misinformed persistence that the white males who voted for Lincoln somehow deserve accolades for being "honorable" in doing so, and frankly, Correll, that equates to some ridiculous bullshit that deserves ridicule.

And lastly, as far as me wasting my time presenting an argument to the likes of you about Jim Crow?

What I am refusing to do is to present readily available facts to someone that it would be a pointless expenditure of my time to do so with.

That is the same as a student showing up to school and refusing to do any homework.

So, your position is that people who were anti-slavery, back when being anti-slavery could, and did, get you killed, deserved no respect for their principled stand for doing the right thing.

That is an indefensible position.


That you stand by it shows you to be completely corrupt and motivated not by your stated reasons.

I am not going t speak for katsteve, he is more than capable, But I am not going to credit people or fixing a problem they created. ...

Neither Lincoln nor his millions of supporters created slavery.

Your position is one of utter dishonesty crafted to justify your current claims of victim hood and the current policies of anti-white discrimination.



Also, as you requested.

 

[katsteve2012]

You're a fool. And your default rant when someone doesn't accept your crackpot reasoning is always some stupid, infantile statement about "poor maligned white people"

I have not minimized the efforts of REAL abolitionists at all, and you know it. Lincoln is who I am referring to, and he was not one of them, and there is not a credible source out there that validates that he was .

It's amusing how you invest so much effort into rewriting what I state in order to facilitate the nonsense that you post.

As I told you before, it is not incumbent upon me to initiate any corrective action to help you with your misinformed ignorance. I am not going to spoon feed you information that you refuse to look for on your own.

Nothing in your post does anything to support your claims.

Calling me names? Does not support. IT is just you being an ass.

Repeating yourself? Does not support. It is just a logical fallacy.

Refusing to offer any support for your claim(s)? Obviously does not support. Just you being dishonest and cowardly.

Im not calling you anything that does not describe your obtuse thought process perfectly.

You have not presented anything in this thread except your warped belief that Lincoln was as anti slavery as any abolitionist, and a misinformed persistence that the white males who voted for Lincoln somehow deserve accolades for being "honorable" in doing so, and frankly, Correll, that equates to some ridiculous bullshit that deserves ridicule.

And lastly, as far as me wasting my time presenting an argument to the likes of you about Jim Crow?

What I am refusing to do is to present readily available facts to someone that it would be a pointless expenditure of my time to do so with.

That is the same as a student showing up to school and refusing to do any homework.

So, your position is that people who were anti-slavery, back when being anti-slavery could, and did, get you killed, deserved no respect for their principled stand for doing the right thing.

That is an indefensible position.


That you stand by it shows you to be completely corrupt and motivated not by your stated reasons.

Are you serious? I did not make a sweeping statement as you are Implying.


I did not even state that Lincoln was not anti slsvery.

I stated thst his reasons for being anti slavery were not completely based on "morality" as you claim, and I also do not believe that every one of those who voted fof him were anti slavery. Some but not all.

You hsve a comprehension issue.

1. What other reason than the morality of it, would be significant for Lincoln?

2. Sure there were other issues, but slavery was the big one. And tariffs were just another aspect of the north south conflict.

I cant believe that you would even have the audacity to ask such a question.

To preserve the union as Lincoln himself, stated repeatedly. They teach that historical fact in elementary school.

SMGDH.

 

[IM2]

You're a fool. And your default rant when someone doesn't accept your crackpot reasoning is always some stupid, infantile statement about "poor maligned white people"

I have not minimized the efforts of REAL abolitionists at all, and you know it. Lincoln is who I am referring to, and he was not one of them, and there is not a credible source out there that validates that he was .

It's amusing how you invest so much effort into rewriting what I state in order to facilitate the nonsense that you post.

As I told you before, it is not incumbent upon me to initiate any corrective action to help you with your misinformed ignorance. I am not going to spoon feed you information that you refuse to look for on your own.

Nothing in your post does anything to support your claims.

Calling me names? Does not support. IT is just you being an ass.

Repeating yourself? Does not support. It is just a logical fallacy.

Refusing to offer any support for your claim(s)? Obviously does not support. Just you being dishonest and cowardly.

Im not calling you anything that does not describe your obtuse thought process perfectly.

You have not presented anything in this thread except your warped belief that Lincoln was as anti slavery as any abolitionist, and a misinformed persistence that the white males who voted for Lincoln somehow deserve accolades for being "honorable" in doing so, and frankly, Correll, that equates to some ridiculous bullshit that deserves ridicule.

And lastly, as far as me wasting my time presenting an argument to the likes of you about Jim Crow?

What I am refusing to do is to present readily available facts to someone that it would be a pointless expenditure of my time to do so with.

That is the same as a student showing up to school and refusing to do any homework.

So, your position is that people who were anti-slavery, back when being anti-slavery could, and did, get you killed, deserved no respect for their principled stand for doing the right thing.

That is an indefensible position.


That you stand by it shows you to be completely corrupt and motivated not by your stated reasons.

Are you serious? I did not make a sweeping statement as you are Implying.


I did not even state that Lincoln was not anti slsvery.

I stated thst his reasons for being anti slavery were not completely based on "morality" as you claim, and I also do not believe that every one of those who voted fof him were anti slavery. Some but not all.

You hsve a comprehension issue.

1. What other reason than the morality of it, would be significant for Lincoln?

2. Sure there were other issues, but slavery was the big one. And tariffs were just another aspect of the north south conflict.

Wrong.

 

[IM2]

This is the same idiot who has made consistent claims of anti white discrimination and has yet to support it.

I've documented it repeatedly, and you are just a liar.

You have not shown anything that specifically states that whites are to be completely denied, or even partially denied, of anything.

Nope, I've just documented that the effect of the various efforts to discrimination in favor of blacks, results in discrimination AGAINST whites.

Your request to see, stated in plain text, open and formal discrimination is just a dodge.

You have shown no law or policy that intentionally denies whites of a damned thing. You have shown equal rights policies and whine about how allowing others equal rights as whites discriminates against whites. That's what you have done.

Oh, you got it wrong, I'm not dodging anything, I simply am not going to waste my time showing you proof of how Jim Crow was the same or worse than slavery when everyone knows it was.

 

[IM2]

You're a fool. And your default rant when someone doesn't accept your crackpot reasoning is always some stupid, infantile statement about "poor maligned white people"

I have not minimized the efforts of REAL abolitionists at all, and you know it. Lincoln is who I am referring to, and he was not one of them, and there is not a credible source out there that validates that he was .

It's amusing how you invest so much effort into rewriting what I state in order to facilitate the nonsense that you post.

As I told you before, it is not incumbent upon me to initiate any corrective action to help you with your misinformed ignorance. I am not going to spoon feed you information that you refuse to look for on your own.

Nothing in your post does anything to support your claims.

Calling me names? Does not support. IT is just you being an ass.

Repeating yourself? Does not support. It is just a logical fallacy.

Refusing to offer any support for your claim(s)? Obviously does not support. Just you being dishonest and cowardly.

Im not calling you anything that does not describe your obtuse thought process perfectly.

You have not presented anything in this thread except your warped belief that Lincoln was as anti slavery as any abolitionist, and a misinformed persistence that the white males who voted for Lincoln somehow deserve accolades for being "honorable" in doing so, and frankly, Correll, that equates to some ridiculous bullshit that deserves ridicule.

And lastly, as far as me wasting my time presenting an argument to the likes of you about Jim Crow?

What I am refusing to do is to present readily available facts to someone that it would be a pointless expenditure of my time to do so with.

That is the same as a student showing up to school and refusing to do any homework.

So, your position is that people who were anti-slavery, back when being anti-slavery could, and did, get you killed, deserved no respect for their principled stand for doing the right thing.

That is an indefensible position.


That you stand by it shows you to be completely corrupt and motivated not by your stated reasons.

I am not going t speak for katsteve, he is more than capable, But I am not going to credit people or fixing a problem they created. ...

Neither Lincoln nor his millions of supporters created slavery.

Your position is one of utter dishonesty crafted to justify your current claims of victim hood and the current policies of anti-white discrimination.



Also, as you requested.

This is a lie and you are the one arguing from a position of dishonesty.

As you requested

 

[IM2]

You are the one who repeated claims over and over again, not katsteve. Lincoln was not radically anti slavery.

Your major mistake here is that you are trying to argue a lie with 2 blacks who have a full understanding of this situation.

Your assessment is simply incorrect.

In the post you just hit the reply button to, I explained how I supported my claims. Something katsteve has not been able to do.

You, like him, failed to respond to my supporting arguments with anything beyond a unsupported denial.


You two being black is irrelevant .

What you call support is non factual garbage. Now, since everyone knows what Jim Crow and black codes entailed, no one needs to provide you with supporting evidence to back up a statement that both were just a bad as slavery.

Yes, you do, or be revealed as an ass who just says shit and can't back it up.

I won't be playing your childish game of prove what you say and because I don't waste the time to show your ass what everybody knows that I can't back up what I say.

Jim Crow/Black codes/American apartheid was just as bad as slavery.

Says the man that can't back up what he claims but stands by it anyways.

Because it serves his purpose of deconstructing America.

That man would be you.

 

[Correll]

Nothing in your post does anything to support your claims.

Calling me names? Does not support. IT is just you being an ass.

Repeating yourself? Does not support. It is just a logical fallacy.

Refusing to offer any support for your claim(s)? Obviously does not support. Just you being dishonest and cowardly.

Im not calling you anything that does not describe your obtuse thought process perfectly.

You have not presented anything in this thread except your warped belief that Lincoln was as anti slavery as any abolitionist, and a misinformed persistence that the white males who voted for Lincoln somehow deserve accolades for being "honorable" in doing so, and frankly, Correll, that equates to some ridiculous bullshit that deserves ridicule.

And lastly, as far as me wasting my time presenting an argument to the likes of you about Jim Crow?

What I am refusing to do is to present readily available facts to someone that it would be a pointless expenditure of my time to do so with.

That is the same as a student showing up to school and refusing to do any homework.

So, your position is that people who were anti-slavery, back when being anti-slavery could, and did, get you killed, deserved no respect for their principled stand for doing the right thing.

That is an indefensible position.


That you stand by it shows you to be completely corrupt and motivated not by your stated reasons.

Are you serious? I did not make a sweeping statement as you are Implying.


I did not even state that Lincoln was not anti slsvery.

I stated thst his reasons for being anti slavery were not completely based on "morality" as you claim, and I also do not believe that every one of those who voted fof him were anti slavery. Some but not all.

You hsve a comprehension issue.

1. What other reason than the morality of it, would be significant for Lincoln?

2. Sure there were other issues, but slavery was the big one. And tariffs were just another aspect of the north south conflict.

I cant believe that you would even have the audacity to ask such a question.

To preserve the union as Lincoln himself, stated repeatedly. They teach that historical fact in elementary school.

SMGDH.

I asked you what other reason Lincoln had for being anti-slavery, not for fighting the war.


If he was not anti-slavery, there would have been no problem.

Actually, he would probably have lost the election.


So, my question stands. WHat other reason(s) than morality, would be significant for Lincoln, to be anti-slavery.



(I was actually very clear about that. YOu confusing seems to be a combination dodge and thinly veiled excuse to be an ass. Knock that shit off)

 

[Correll]

Nothing in your post does anything to support your claims.

Calling me names? Does not support. IT is just you being an ass.

Repeating yourself? Does not support. It is just a logical fallacy.

Refusing to offer any support for your claim(s)? Obviously does not support. Just you being dishonest and cowardly.

Im not calling you anything that does not describe your obtuse thought process perfectly.

You have not presented anything in this thread except your warped belief that Lincoln was as anti slavery as any abolitionist, and a misinformed persistence that the white males who voted for Lincoln somehow deserve accolades for being "honorable" in doing so, and frankly, Correll, that equates to some ridiculous bullshit that deserves ridicule.

And lastly, as far as me wasting my time presenting an argument to the likes of you about Jim Crow?

What I am refusing to do is to present readily available facts to someone that it would be a pointless expenditure of my time to do so with.

That is the same as a student showing up to school and refusing to do any homework.

So, your position is that people who were anti-slavery, back when being anti-slavery could, and did, get you killed, deserved no respect for their principled stand for doing the right thing.

That is an indefensible position.


That you stand by it shows you to be completely corrupt and motivated not by your stated reasons.

I am not going t speak for katsteve, he is more than capable, But I am not going to credit people or fixing a problem they created. ...

Neither Lincoln nor his millions of supporters created slavery.

Your position is one of utter dishonesty crafted to justify your current claims of victim hood and the current policies of anti-white discrimination.



Also, as you requested.

This is a lie and you are the one arguing from a position of dishonesty.

As you requested

your words,


"I am not going to credit people or fixing a problem they created. ."


in the context of Lincoln and his supporters getting credit for their fight against slavery.


THus, my response was not a lie, and was an accurate calling of you on your bs.


Here is is again, if you are willing to stop playing games and seriously and honestly reply to it.




Neither Lincoln nor his millions of supporters created slavery.

Your position is one of utter dishonesty crafted to justify your current claims of victim hood and the current policies of anti-white discrimination.

 

[Correll]

In the post you just hit the reply button to, I explained how I supported my claims. Something katsteve has not been able to do.

You, like him, failed to respond to my supporting arguments with anything beyond a unsupported denial.


You two being black is irrelevant .

What you call support is non factual garbage. Now, since everyone knows what Jim Crow and black codes entailed, no one needs to provide you with supporting evidence to back up a statement that both were just a bad as slavery.

Yes, you do, or be revealed as an ass who just says shit and can't back it up.

I won't be playing your childish game of prove what you say and because I don't waste the time to show your ass what everybody knows that I can't back up what I say.

Jim Crow/Black codes/American apartheid was just as bad as slavery.

Says the man that can't back up what he claims but stands by it anyways.

Because it serves his purpose of deconstructing America.

That man would be you.

I'm not the one making a claim and refusing to back it up, THat's you.

You are lying with the truth of your actions, right above in this thread.

Here, I will cut and paste them to rub it in your face.

YOUR WORDS:"I won't be playing your childish game of prove what you say and because I don't waste the time to show your ass what everybody knows that I can't back up what I say."



FYI, asking someone to back up their claim is not childish.

 

[katsteve2012]

Im not calling you anything that does not describe your obtuse thought process perfectly.

You have not presented anything in this thread except your warped belief that Lincoln was as anti slavery as any abolitionist, and a misinformed persistence that the white males who voted for Lincoln somehow deserve accolades for being "honorable" in doing so, and frankly, Correll, that equates to some ridiculous bullshit that deserves ridicule.

And lastly, as far as me wasting my time presenting an argument to the likes of you about Jim Crow?

What I am refusing to do is to present readily available facts to someone that it would be a pointless expenditure of my time to do so with.

That is the same as a student showing up to school and refusing to do any homework.

So, your position is that people who were anti-slavery, back when being anti-slavery could, and did, get you killed, deserved no respect for their principled stand for doing the right thing.

That is an indefensible position.


That you stand by it shows you to be completely corrupt and motivated not by your stated reasons.

Are you serious? I did not make a sweeping statement as you are Implying.


I did not even state that Lincoln was not anti slsvery.

I stated thst his reasons for being anti slavery were not completely based on "morality" as you claim, and I also do not believe that every one of those who voted fof him were anti slavery. Some but not all.

You hsve a comprehension issue.

1. What other reason than the morality of it, would be significant for Lincoln?

2. Sure there were other issues, but slavery was the big one. And tariffs were just another aspect of the north south conflict.

I cant believe that you would even have the audacity to ask such a question.

To preserve the union as Lincoln himself, stated repeatedly. They teach that historical fact in elementary school.

SMGDH.

I asked you what other reason Lincoln had for being anti-slavery, not for fighting the war.


If he was not anti-slavery, there would have been no problem.

Actually, he would probably have lost the election.


So, my question stands. WHat other reason(s) than morality, would be significant for Lincoln, to be anti-slavery.



(I was actually very clear about that. YOu confusing seems to be a combination dodge and thinly veiled excuse to be an ass. Knock that shit off)

You are not a moderator here, and I dont take orders from you, asshole.

And no, you "think" you are clear, but you are the one dodging.

What reason would he have for being anti slavery? Are you serious? I never said he was not. Your intention is to place him and anyone who cast a vote for him on a moral pedastal in order to glorify the only ones who were allowed to even vote in that era, which is laughable.

It is very clear in all historical accounts that the country could not effectively advance towards industrialization if slavery had remained intact.
The reasons for fighting the war and being anti slavery were rooted in the same issues.

Did you ever take a history class?

Lincoln and Abolitionism | The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History

 

[katsteve2012]

Im not calling you anything that does not describe your obtuse thought process perfectly.

You have not presented anything in this thread except your warped belief that Lincoln was as anti slavery as any abolitionist, and a misinformed persistence that the white males who voted for Lincoln somehow deserve accolades for being "honorable" in doing so, and frankly, Correll, that equates to some ridiculous bullshit that deserves ridicule.

And lastly, as far as me wasting my time presenting an argument to the likes of you about Jim Crow?

What I am refusing to do is to present readily available facts to someone that it would be a pointless expenditure of my time to do so with.

That is the same as a student showing up to school and refusing to do any homework.

So, your position is that people who were anti-slavery, back when being anti-slavery could, and did, get you killed, deserved no respect for their principled stand for doing the right thing.

That is an indefensible position.


That you stand by it shows you to be completely corrupt and motivated not by your stated reasons.

I am not going t speak for katsteve, he is more than capable, But I am not going to credit people or fixing a problem they created. ...

Neither Lincoln nor his millions of supporters created slavery.

Your position is one of utter dishonesty crafted to justify your current claims of victim hood and the current policies of anti-white discrimination.



Also, as you requested.

This is a lie and you are the one arguing from a position of dishonesty.

As you requested

your words,


"I am not going to credit people or fixing a problem they created. ."


in the context of Lincoln and his supporters getting credit for their fight against slavery.


THus, my response was not a lie, and was an accurate calling of you on your bs.


Here is is again, if you are willing to stop playing games and seriously and honestly reply to it.




Neither Lincoln nor his millions of supporters created slavery.

Your position is one of utter dishonesty crafted to justify your current claims of victim hood and the current policies of anti-white discrimination.

You poor victim.

 

[Correll]

So, your position is that people who were anti-slavery, back when being anti-slavery could, and did, get you killed, deserved no respect for their principled stand for doing the right thing.

That is an indefensible position.


That you stand by it shows you to be completely corrupt and motivated not by your stated reasons.

Are you serious? I did not make a sweeping statement as you are Implying.


I did not even state that Lincoln was not anti slsvery.

I stated thst his reasons for being anti slavery were not completely based on "morality" as you claim, and I also do not believe that every one of those who voted fof him were anti slavery. Some but not all.

You hsve a comprehension issue.

1. What other reason than the morality of it, would be significant for Lincoln?

2. Sure there were other issues, but slavery was the big one. And tariffs were just another aspect of the north south conflict.

I cant believe that you would even have the audacity to ask such a question.

To preserve the union as Lincoln himself, stated repeatedly. They teach that historical fact in elementary school.

SMGDH.

I asked you what other reason Lincoln had for being anti-slavery, not for fighting the war.


If he was not anti-slavery, there would have been no problem.

Actually, he would probably have lost the election.


So, my question stands. WHat other reason(s) than morality, would be significant for Lincoln, to be anti-slavery.



(I was actually very clear about that. YOu confusing seems to be a combination dodge and thinly veiled excuse to be an ass. Knock that shit off)

You are not a moderator here, and I dont take orders from you, asshole.

And no, you "think" you are clear, but you are the one dodging.

What reason would he have for being anti slavery? Are you serious? I never said he was not. Your intention is to place him and anyone who cast a vote for him on a moral pedastal in order to glorify the only ones who were allowed to even vote in that era, which is laughable.

It is very clear in all historical accounts that the country could not effectively advance towards industrialization if slavery had remained intact.
The reasons for fighting the war and being anti slavery were rooted in the same issues.

Did you ever take a history class?

Lincoln and Abolitionism | The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History

1. I can point out that you are an ass, and demand that you stop, based on the human norm of people not wanting to be asses. If you actively want to be an ass, than, correct, I cannot compel you to stop. I will keep pointing it out and hoping though.


2. Can't see your link. Explain why having slaves picking cotton in the South meant that steel mills could not be built in the North.