The Leftard Cultist Talking Point of the Century

[WestCanMan]

4 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

The same holds for Trump except he actually explicitly articulates fascist ideas and rhetoric, man you're a dimwit.

Cite.

FYI that means video of Trump doing it, not CNN opinions/propaganda. Sorry.

Quote

What the f*ck does this even mean lmao

Don't worry, he didn't say it.

[Black Dog]

17 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Actually I never did claim that. I said I hadn't heard him use Marxist before and communist very rarely.

"I'm not wrong I just don't know what I'm talking about" is one heckuva defense.

Quote

And in all of your attempts you only found one person he called Marxist and communist

1. No, as I indicated he's not talking about actual communists when he talks about communists and everyone except you seems to know it.

2. Even if it was just one person, he uses it in every single one of his stump speeches.

Quote

So yes it's really simple. You lied and are still trying to lie about what I said in order to make yourself look slightly less stupid. Spoiler: It's not working REEEEEEEEEE

Do you think you look smart by admitting you don't pay attention to Trump's rhetoric but still opine on it?

Quote

Ohh yeahhh  you lost that one too didn't you ':) No wonder we moved on REEEEEEEEEE   But no, that's not where it started

1. That's where i came into this thread, to laugh your retarded claim about Lincoln.

2. We moved on because you surrendered. You couldn't produce any evidence to corroborate the claims in that book you clearly didn't read and so you gave up. 

Quote

LOL  - so i say we shouldn't erase history,  i point out you cant seem to find examples of your claims,  and you frequently have to lie about what i said to try to make your point.....   but I"M the one reshaping the world REEEEEEEEEE 

Yes you're doing it right now by lying about how this thread has gone.

Quote

I'm sure your province offers SOME sort of free psychiatric  care you could take advantage of REEEEEEEEEE

Woof and here you are once again copying other people's more clever insults.

Quote

the left wants to destroy the past and the symbols of the past and rewrite history so that America is an evil awful terrible no good very bad place. They think America is a piece of shit and inherently racist and should be destroyed in favor of a new Utopia and model of their preference.

Tearing down statues celebrating traitors and slavers for being traitors and slavers is only "erasing history" if you don't know how to read actual history books waitaminute I think I figured out your problem.

Quote

That's a bad thing. Sorry kid but you just can't rewrite history to cover that up

Guy who is lying about Lincoln owning slaves is crying about rewriting history lol what a world.

Edited October 8, 2024 by Black Dog

[Black Dog]

5 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Cite.

FYI that means video of Trump doing it, not CNN opinions/propaganda. Sorry.

"They're poisoning the blood of our country."

Blood and soil!

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Black Dog said:

"I'm not wrong I just don't know what I'm talking about" is one heckuva defense.

LOL - it was actually "you appear to be wrong, do you know what YOU'RE talking aobut?" 

Turned out it was no.  But as always your lack of intelligence or knowledge is all my fault  

 

Quote

1. No, as I indicated he's not talking about actual communists when he talks about communists and everyone except you seems to know it.

You very clearly is. When somebody says we don't want communists here then what they're saying is is that they don't want communists here

Why do I always have to explain how English Works to you?

 

Quote

2. Even if it was just one person, he uses it in every single one of his stump speeches.

Well it doesn't seem to be the case that he uses it at every single one of them but if it's his favorite insult you would think he would use it with more than one person.

Quote

Do you think you look smart by admitting you don't pay attention to Trump's rhetoric but still opine on it?

But I didn't opine on it. I said my observations did not match your claims, can you provide evidence for your claims? Then you couldn't    

It was you who made the claim that it was his favorite insult and then couldn't back it up.

 

Quote

1. That's where i came into this thread, to laugh your retarded claim about Lincoln.

Which you turned out to be wrong about.  But my comment there was that we can appreciate the good a person did even if they did bad, and that's what you replied to. 

Quote

2. We moved on because you surrendered. You couldn't produce any evidence to corroborate the claims in that book 

LOL i didn't give up and i provided evidence.  But i love that your claim is now "you didn't provide any evidence to prove the evidence you provided was evidence  LOL, you couldn't refute it and that was that. 

Quote

Yes you're doing it right now by lying about how this thread has gone.

The one being dishonest here is you.  As usual when a discussion does not go the way you want it to you try to shift goalposts, lie about what you said, lie about what everyone else said, and drag things out forever out of fustration, all while ignoring the actual points.

 

Quote

Tearing down statues celebrating traitors and slavers for being traitors and slavers is only "erasing history" if you don't know how to read actual history books waitaminute I think I figured out your problem.

The only reason you do it is to erase history and the books will be next. You can't stand that the gentleman in question was a great man who did many excellent things before and after the war that are laudable and worthy of respect. It's still entirely fair to talk about the things that weren't worthy of respect and have that discussion, but like I said everything you say about him could be said about Louis riel yet you woudn't suggest tearing down his statues

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

 

 

NYTimes called her a communist when she talked about implementing price controls.

 

Can I get a cite for that ?  Weird for me to read that, because they endorsed her.

[Black Dog]

17 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Exactly. And days gone by people held different political views and respected other people's right to do so and still thought well of the other person even if they disagreed

Nowadays the left specifically teaches its adherence that it's not enough to disagree, you must hate the person for being evil and do all you can to harm them. This might include cutting them out of your life or attacking their work or attempting to harm them socially, whatever it takes to hurt them you do it. Because they disagree.

And this is largely the tactic Hitler used. He taught people that everyone else who didn't agree with them or didn't have the same race as them was out to get them and it was perfectly acceptable to harm them if they can. 

Oh goodie the guy who argued the Nazis were not motivated by racial supremacy is here to lecture about what the Nazis believed loooooooollllll

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Black Dog said:

Oh goodie the guy who argued the Nazis were not motivated by racial supremacy is here to lecture about what the Nazis believed loooooooollllll

Yeh  never actually said that at all   Go ahead and cite where i said the nazis themselves were not motivated by racial policy   

Once again you have to lie about what other people said to cover your own ignorance  

[Black Dog]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

LOL - it was actually "you appear to be wrong, do you know what YOU'RE talking aobut?" Turned out it was no.  But as always your lack of intelligence or knowledge is all my fault REEEEEEEE

Ironic since this case your lack of knowledge (your professed ignorance of Trump's red scare rhetoric) is the issue here.

Quote

You very clearly is. When somebody says we don't want communists here then what they're saying is is that they don't want communists here

Why do I always have to explain how English Works to you?

Except who Trump consider communists and who you think he considers communists are not the same thing.

Quote

Well it doesn't seem to be the case that he uses it at every single one of them but if it's his favorite insult you would think he would use it with more than one person.

Check the transcripts you dunderhead he trots out the same little routine "they tell me i shouldn't call her a Marxist, maybe she's a communist blah blah blah" at every rally in the. last few months.

Quote

Which you turned out to be wrong about.  But my comment there was that we can appreciate the good a person did even if they did bad, and that's what you replied to

Nope. There's no valid evidence Lincoln owned slaves, just one kooks self-published book. If that's your standard of evidence, it does explain a lot.

Quote

 

But I didn't opine on it. I said my observations did not match your claims, can you provide evidence for your claims? Then you couldn't  REEEEEEEEE  

It was you who made the claim that it was his favorite insult and then couldn't back it up.

Nope, I didn't make that claim. someone else did, I simply provided examples of him saying it to educate your dumb ass.

Quote

The one being dishonest here is you.  As usual when a discussion does not go the way you want it to you try to shift goalposts, lie about what you said, lie about what everyone else said, and drag things out forever out of fustration, all while ignoring the actual points.

Literally all your MO, like I couldn't have described your usual behaviour better. 

Quote

The only reason you do it is to erase history and the books will be next.

Nope.

Quote

You can't stand that the gentleman in question was a great man who did many excellent things before and after the war that are laudable and worthy of respect.

Even if that were true and not absurd hyperbole, that's not what the statues in question are celebrating. They are celebrating his leadership of the army of traitors and slave mongers.

Quote

It's still entirely fair to talk about the things that weren't worthy of respect and have that discussion, but like I said everything you say about him could be said about Louis riel yet you woudn't suggest tearing down his statues

We can talk about all those things, good and bad, without having statues celebrating the bad things up. It's pretty simple.

[Black Dog]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yeh  never actually said that at all reeeeeee Go ahead and cite where i said the nazis themselves were not motivated by racial policy  reeeeee

Once again you have to lie about what other people said to cover your own ignorance reeeeeee

On 8/1/2024 at 4:46 PM, CdnFox said:

And no - racial issues are not the defining characteristic of nazis. They didn't launch ww2 over 'jews".  They didn't invade poland because "aryans".  They didn't get elected to power because 'blacks". In fact it's one of the least defining thing about them, other than perhaps the jews. What defined them was their stance about market socialsm vs state owned socialism, and even more so their belief that the purpose and duty of the state was to expand the state through military force, as well as a strict control over social issues right down to what kind of music people could or could not listen to.

Now I know you're going to do some splitting routine about "uh I said they weren't defined by it not that they weren't motivated by it" but IDGAF, it's clear you don't think racial supremacy was as important to the Nazis as economic issues which is laughable as hell. I mean you even argued that the Nazi's views on lebensraum weren't racially motivated and proved it by posting a link that detailed how the Nazi's views on lebensraum were explicitly racially motivated looool. Good times.

[CdnFox]

Just now, Black Dog said:

Ironic since this case your lack of knowledge (your professed ignorance of Trump's red scare rhetoric) is the issue here.

LOL it really isn't  

You made a claim, i noted i hadn't experienced that and you coudlnt' back up your claim. Your false claim and your inability to back it up is the issue here  

 

Quote

Except who Trump consider communists and who you think he considers communists are not the same thing.

Cite?  No? Hmmmm

So you're claiming that he's not using the normal meaning of what he's saying but can't prove he isn't.  How about that. 

Quote

Check the transcripts you dunderhead he trots out the same little routine "they tell me i shouldn't call her a Marxist, maybe she's a communist blah blah blah" at every rally in the. last few months.

So he calls one person a communist etc.  Sooooo  not his favorite insult, just one of his favorites for her. 

So you were wrong.  Kay

Quote

Nope. There's no valid evidence Lincoln owned slaves, just one kooks self-published book. If that's your standard of evidence, it does explain a lot.

Well there is and unfortunately you don't seem to be able to prove otherwise. To do so you'd have to disprove the evidence in that book. 

Quote

Nope, I didn't make that claim. someone else did, I simply provided examples of him saying it to educate your dumb ass.

Sure kid  LOL  i'd deny it if i'd said it too

 

Quote

Even if that were true and not absurd hyperbole, that's not what the statues in question are celebrating. They are celebrating his leadership of the army of traitors and slave mongers.

You have a quote of him saying "I'm leading this army of traitors...  etc?  Or perhaps saying "We must defend our slavery"?

No? None? Hmmmm

When people talk about his statue or him do they say "gosh, i really wish we had traitors and slavers like him these days?"  No? No one? 

Hmmm

his statue is there because of the great things he did. He did stand up for what he believed was right which was southern independence. Not slavery. He did not believe that the nationalists in the north had the right to dictate or control his state and his people. A lot of people still believe that. And he did MUCH to heal the wounds and bring the nation together after the war.  

Quote

We can talk about all those things, good and bad, without having statues celebrating the bad things up. It's pretty simple.

We can talk about them WITH statues.  But we're less likely to talk about them without statues, out of sight out of mind. 

Which is why you want them gone. 

[WestCanMan]

41 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

"They're poisoning the blood of our country."

He's talking about people coming in from prisons and asylums, not "immigrants". He's quite explicit about that.

Cuba did it to America back in the early '80s. https://www.history.com/news/mariel-boatlift-castro-carter-cold-war

• Castro, taking advantage of Carter’s open-door policy, forcefully deported convicted criminals, mental hospital patients, LGTBQ people and prostitutes—people Castro crudely labeled as “escoria” (trash). In total, some 125,000 Cubans left the island during the Mariel Boatlift: up to 20,000 had criminal records and thousands had served time in mental institutions.

Don't pretend it's not happening again.

Quote

Blood and soil!

What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?

[WestCanMan]

44 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Can I get a cite for that ?  Weird for me to read that, because they endorsed her.

My bad, it was WashPo:

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Now I know you're going to do some splitting routine about "uh I said they weren't defined by it not that they weren't motivated by it"

You mean i'll tell the truth  

LOL that's hilarious - "Now i know you're going to complain that the thing i said you said is entirely different than the thing you actually said, but...."

Quote

but IDGAF, it's clear you don't think racial supremacy was as important to the Nazis as economic issues which is laughable as hell.

LOL no it isn't, and i never said anything like that  In fact I said that it was very important to the Nazis in an individual basis. And I never said anything about comparing their racist tendencies to economics. What I said to find their policy was there socialistic control of the market and the populace combined with their desire to take over other countries to grow the empire. and that's what drove them and their policies more than racism. Even their anti-semite behavior wasn't their primary focus, and anti-Semitism is not racial. Jews aren't a race

Nobody thinks oh yeah I remember the Nazis from world war II, they were really mean to black people. 

Quote

I mean you even argued that the Nazi's views on lebensraum weren't racially motivated and proved it by posting a link that detailed how the Nazi's views on lebensraum were explicitly racially motivated looool. Good times.

Actually as i pointed out at the time your own link disagreed with you. It said leensraum was around for years and HAPPENED to fit with the nazi ideas about other races. So no. 

I mean you have literally posted something that shows that I did not say what you claimed I did. It also shows that I did not say what you just made up that I said. And then you raise the fact that your cite demonstrated your claim was wrong. 

Like.... you could be stupid at an olympic level. 

So what appears to have happened here is that you didn't remember a number of things I said correctly and made a stupid statement. When called on it you realize your error and are now desperately trying to shoehorn what was said to match what you claimed, but it doesn't.

LOL  -  you could at least make showing you up as stupid to be a challenge  

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Can I get a cite for that ?  Weird for me to read that, because they endorsed her.

@WestCanMan does not seem to know what an opinion piece is. Just because a diversity of opinions are encouraged in a publication does not mean the publication (in this case it would be the editorial board) has "called" Harris anything. And, in fact, the OpEd does not "call" Harris anything. Frankly, it's more of a political messaging critique than an economic argument. There are real issues underlying a poorly articulated policy point.

[Black Dog]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

LOL it really isn't  You made a claim, i noted i hadn't experienced that and you coudlnt' back up your claim. Your false claim and your inability to back it up is the issue here  

1. Again, I didn't make the claim.

2. I gave you examples to educate your dumb ass.

3. You decided to pretend he doesn't mean what he says when he says what we all know he means.

Quote

Cite?  No? Hmmmm

So you're claiming that he's not using the normal meaning of what he's saying but can't prove he isn't.  How about that. 

I'm claiming he's using communist as a short hand for anyone who is on the left/Democrats/not MAGA. The evidence for that is the fact he calls Kamala Harris, who is not a Marxist or a communist, a Marxist and communist. You really need to get out more.

Quote

Well there is and unfortunately you don't seem to be able to prove otherwise. To do so you'd have to disprove the evidence in that book. 

There's no actual evidence Lincoln owned slaves. The book you are citing doesn't have evidence Lincoln owned slaves. You can read the author's incredibly absurd rationalization for his claims here without wasting your money on the book, but his claim is that Lincoln's wife's father owned slaves, and when died that meant Abe inherited the family's slaves. However there's no actual documentation of that happening because, the authour claims, some pro Lincoln scholar stole it all. LOL.

The single piece of evidence he did find is an affidavit from the law firm representing Lincoln and his wife which authorized the sale of her father's estate which included enslaved people. but it's clear from the document that they didn't have ownership of the slaves. The document reads they were "willing that the slaves mentioned in the bill shall be sold on such terms as the court may think advisable". But if the slaves were their property, what does the court have to do with it, and why would it dictate the terms? Well, it turns out that Mary Todd Lincoln's father died without leaving a will and so according to Kentucky law at the time, all his property had to be sold off in private sale or public auction and all the children had to approve. The slaves were apparently purchased by George, Mary Todd Lincoln's brother, and her step-mother. The slaves were never property of Mary Todd Lincoln or Abraham Lincoln. The most you can say is they may have profited from the sale of slaves, but that assumes they received any money from the deal and there's no evidence of that either.

There. Done. QE f*ckin' D.

Quote

You have a quote of him saying "I'm leading this army of traitors...  etc?  Or perhaps saying "We must defend our slavery"?

No? None? Hmmmm

When people talk about his statue or him do they say "gosh, i really wish we had traitors and slavers like him these days?"  No? No one? 

I have no idea what any of this has to do with anything here, but Lee's personal feelings on slavery was that it was a necessary evil.

Quote

"The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence."

Mind you he personally owned several slaves.

Quote

his statue is there because of the great things he did.

Most notably leading an army of secessionists to defend the institution of slavery.

Quote

He did stand up for what he believed was right which was southern independence. Not slavery. He did not believe that the nationalists in the north had the right to dictate or control his state and his people.

lmaoooo you gotta be shitting me, did you go to school in Alabama or something?

The cause of secession was slavery; specifically, the Southern states wanted to keep and expand it and the North did not.

Quote

A lot of people still believe that.

A lot of people also believe that slavery wasn't the cause of the Civil War because the same folks who put up Confederate Statues propagated that myth, but it's not true.

Quote

And he did MUCH to heal the wounds and bring the nation together after the war.

But the statues aren't celebrating Mr. Robert E. Lee, private citizen and unifier. They are celebrating General Robert E. Lee, commander of the Confederate Army which staged a rebellion in defense of slavery.

Quote

We can talk about them WITH statues.  But we're less likely to talk about them without statues, out of sight out of mind. 

Have you considered reading an actual book for once in your life instead of getting all your education from equestrian sculptures?

Edited October 8, 2024 by Black Dog

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Black Dog said:

1. Again, I didn't make the claim.

2. I gave you examples to educate your dumb ass.

3. You decided to pretend he doesn't mean what he says when he says what we all know he means.

I'm claiming he's using communist as a short hand for anyone who is on the left/Democrats/not MAGA. The evidence for that is the fact he calls Kamala Harris, who is not a Marxist or a communist, a Marxist and communist. You really need to get out more.

There's no actual evidence Lincoln owned slaves. The book you are citing doesn't have evidence Lincoln owned slaves. You can read the author's incredibly absurd rationalization for his claims here without wasting your money on the book, but his claim is that Lincoln's wife's father owned slaves, and when died that meant Abe inherited the family's slaves. However there's no actual documentation of that happening because, the authour claims, some pro Lincoln scholar stole it all. LOL.

The single piece of evidence he did find is an affidavit from the law firm representing Lincoln and his wife which authorized the sale of her father's estate which included enslaved people. but it's clear from the document that they didn't have ownership of the slaves. The document reads they were "willing that the slaves mentioned in the bill shall be sold on such terms as the court may think advisable". But if the slaves were their property, what does the court have to do with it, and why would it dictate the terms? Well, it turns out that Mary Todd Lincoln's father died without leaving a will and so according to Kentucky law at the time, all his property had to be sold off and all the children had to approve. The slaves were purchased by George, Mary Todd Lincoln's brother, and her step-mother. The slaves were never property of Mary Todd Lincoln or Abraham Lincoln. The most you can say is they may have profited from the sale of slaves, but that assumes they received any money from the deal.

There. Done. QE f*ckin' D.

I have no idea what any of this has to do with anything here, but Lee's personal feelings on slavery was that it was a necessary evil.

Mind you he personally owned several slaves.

Most notably leading an army of secessionists to defend the insitution of slavery.

lmaoooo you gotta be shitting me, did you go to school in Alabama or some shit?

The cause of secession was slavery. Specifically, the Southern states wanted to keep and expand it and the North did not.

A lot of people also believe that slavery wasn't the cause of the Civil War because the same folks who put up Confederate Statues propagated that myth, but it's not true.

 But the statues aren't celebrating Mr. Robert E. Lee, private citizen and unifier. They are celebrating General Robert E. Lee, commander of the Confederate Army.

Have you considered reading an actual book for once in your life instead of getting all your education from equestrian sculptures?

Blah blah blah deny deny deny lie lie lie backpeddal backpeddal. 

You did make that claim and continue to do so,

Plain english is plain english no matter how much you wish it wasn't

He obviously isn't using 'communist' to describe anyone who's not maga

There's an entire book laying out lincoln's slavery connection, and you say there's no evidence and then provide evidence. (which you do frequently).  So your loss. 

The cause of succession was not slavery. That's a modern take that the left loves, but in reality it was the right to set their own loaws and policies and not to be interfered with. Slavery was a prime example and held up as such but it was not the only one and this issue went back to the very first confederation discussions.  The south was 'don't tread on me' and the north was 'united we stand divided we fall'. 

You clearly have no clue what the us is celebrating. 

 

Your lies and your attempts to re write history only prove my point. 

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

My bad, it was WashPo:

They didn't call her a communist. Trump did.

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

They didn't call her a communist. Trump did.

The implication is pretty clear that they feel her actions supported his point.  Its' pretty obvious what they're saying is your opponent called you something you don't like and here you are behaving that very way. 

 

[Black Dog]

18 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Blah blah blah deny deny deny lie lie lie backpeddal backpeddal. 

You did make that claim and continue to do so,

You dumb c*nt.

On 10/3/2024 at 7:42 PM, Hodad said:

"Marxist, communist, fascist" is, I believe, Trump's ignorant nonsense insult of choice. 

Me, I wouldn't say it's his "insult of choice" per se, but he uses it a lot in his various unhinged "old man yells at tv" rants.

Quote

He obviously isn't using 'communist' to describe anyone who's not maga

Yes he obviously is since he calls Harris a Communist and she is quite obviously not.

Quote

There's an entire book laying out lincoln's slavery connection,

LOL a book you haven't even read that doesn't actually seem to have been published at all. It's not on Amazon or Barnes and Noble and you can't even buy it from the author's own self-publishing site. Amateur hour stuff.

My advice is to stick to the real thing by real scholars like Did Lincoln Own Slaves? by Gerald Prokopowicz an actual scholar of the Civil War. (Spoiler alert: the answer is no.)

Quote

 

and you say there's no evidence and then provide evidence. (which you do frequently).  So your loss. 

 

I literally just explained it. LOL you've been shown up but still double down because you are mentally a toddler with oppositional defiance disorder.

Quote

The cause of succession was not slavery. That's a modern take that the left loves, but in reality it was the right to set their own loaws and policies and not to be interfered with.

Yeah the right to set their own laws and policies to own and sell slaves. 

Quote

Slavery was a prime example and held up as such but it was not the only one and this issue went back to the very first confederation discussions. 

Slavery was the primary issue that motivated the secessionists, just like racial superiority was the primary issue that motivated Hitler and the Nazis. I should start charging for this education.

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

You dumb c*nt.

LOL  ahhhh yes, your usual melt down and retort when you've got nothing  

 

Quote

Me, I wouldn't say it's his "insult of choice" per se, but he uses it a lot in his various unhinged "old man yells at tv" rants.

Well, I suppose it's not an unreasonable statement to say that virtually all political rally speeches are old man yells at TV type events (except harris which is an 'Old woman giggles at tv" event) and I'm sure it does come up at a number of those events so I'm willing to spot you that as being probably an accurate statement

Quote

Yes he obviously is since he calls Harris a Communist and she is quite obviously not.

welll.... obviously is a strong word   She very much has communistic elements in her platform and previous speeches. 

Quote

 

LOL a book you haven't even read that doesn't actually seem to have been published at all. It's not on Amazon or Barnes and Noble and you can't even buy it from the author's own self-publishing site. Amateur hour stuff.

My advice is to stick to the real thing by real scholars like Did Lincoln Own Slaves? by Gerald Prokopowicz an actual scholar of the Civil War. (Spoiler alert: the answer is no.)

 

Blah blah still can't refute and now getting more butthurt aperently.

Quote

I literally just explained it. 

And you're wrong, but you did provide more evidence he trafficked in slaves. 

Quote

Yeah the right to set their own laws and policies to own and sell slaves. 

Yes.  Among other things, that's true. They demanded the right to set all of their own laws and saw confederation is more of a loose association than giving power to a national central government. Slavery was one of the issues where they disagree, but there were others and they worry that there would be even further ones. Laws were being proposed that would have affected their agricultural Prosperity well beyond slavery.

And they were assured this is something that wouldn't happen when they signed on to confederation

Quote

Slavery was the primary issue that motivated the secessionists, just like racial superiority was the primary issue that motivated Hitler and the Nazis. I should start charging for this education.

More like you should be charged for your misinformation  

Very little of the Nazi policy had anything to do with racism. And while slavery was certainly the biggest example and sorepoint, what led to the south rising up was a difference between them being able to set their own policies and laws and the north being able to set them for them. That included things like excise taxes shipping and other concerns land use and ownership and a number of other things. Let's not forget that the war started not over a conflict involving a slave but rather a conflict involving who owned a piece of land that a fort was on and the right of the north to station military there.

[WestCanMan]

34 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

They didn't call her a communist. Trump did.

I knew that I'd have to explain that one to you lol.

The WashPo just printed a page acknowledging that Kamala's own policy proposal lends credibility to Trump's assertion that she's a communist.

[impartialobserver]

the topic (at least I think it was) of the thread was the misleading job numbers. 

https://www.bls.gov/cew/data.htm

Federal Govt. employment as of Dec. 2019 (pre covid)  - 2,848,802. March 2024 - 2,985,529. Thats a gain of 136,727
Private employment (non-government). Dec 2019 126,358,743. March 2024 130,918,792.  + 4,560,049

This is not CES (the monthly jobs esimtate). It would appear that we have exceeded the pre-covid job totals. The high point pre-covid was either in August or November 2019 nationally and in most states. Nationally, it was nov. 2019 with employment of 127943339

 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, impartialobserver said:

the topic (at least I think it was) of the thread was the misleading job numbers. 

And they were.

The 10M jobs, or whatever it was that came back in 2022, weren't the result of Bidenomics. They were the result of covid restrictions ending.

I'm pretty sure that everyone posting on this forum remembers that all those millions of jobs were axed in covid lockdowns in 2020, and when they reappeared in 2022 it wasn't because Biden did anything special, but he did a victory lap about that. It was an astonishingly blatant lie that the MSM somehow missed.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

And they were.

The 10M jobs, or whatever it was that came back in 2022, weren't the result of Bidenomics. They were the result of covid restrictions ending.

I'm pretty sure that everyone posting on this forum remembers that all those millions of jobs were axed in covid lockdowns in 2020, and when they reappeared in 2022 it wasn't because Biden did anything special, but he did a victory lap about that. It was an astonishingly blatant lie that the MSM somehow missed.

Yeah, if the economy goes from 100 to 1, and then climbs to 2 - claiming its a '100 percent increase' isn't impressive  

"Everyone go home. Ok now everyone come back.  WOW LOOK AT ALL THE JOBS I "Created!" '    Ahh democrat math, if numbers worked the way they think they do we'd all have 13 fingers. 

[impartialobserver]

16 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

And they were.

The 10M jobs, or whatever it was that came back in 2022, weren't the result of Bidenomics. They were the result of covid restrictions ending.

I'm pretty sure that everyone posting on this forum remembers that all those millions of jobs were axed in covid lockdowns in 2020, and when they reappeared in 2022 it wasn't because Biden did anything special, but he did a victory lap about that. It was an astonishingly blatant lie that the MSM somehow missed.

I give no credit to Biden but in the aggregate.. jobs did increase. All of the jobs lost during covid came back plus more. Yes, the media is going to use the low point during covid as the base number. This low point was 105,812,026 (private employment) in April 2020. This computes to a gain of 25,106,766 jobs or 23.7% gain if you use March 2024 as the endpoint. 

Now if you use the end of 2019 as your base then it computes to a gain of 4,560,049 jobs or 3.6% gain. Compare this to a similar period during Trump's time (Dec 2015 to Dec 2019) which was a gain of 8,051,026 jobs or 6.8% 

BTW... if you want to know how to get these numbers on your own I can easily explain how to do this via the Internet or if you are ever so brave.. R Studio. I use Private (ownership = 50) because it was what was affected more during covid. Government employment (fed, state, or local) is fairly stable in the short term. You could go state by state but that is time consuming unless you know some serious programming. 

 

Edited October 9, 2024 by impartialobserver