You're assuming Republican and conservative are one in the same. Republicans are a political party. Conservitives are a group of people with a similar view as each other.
Semantics, but yes correct. Still doesn't change the fact that the VAST majority of the republican party are conservative and still fight to keep from spending money on the care of vets, police, fire, paramedics, or any other public servant.
Robert what does "people" (in quotes) mean? Is it breathing humans of voting age, or something more expansive (i.e. citizens united type definition)?
Your political beliefs are pretty scatterbrained so it's hard to get a handle on what you actually believe, but it sounds like you'd like US farmers to feed the world's hungry? I'm not sure what that really has to do with anything. Plus I'm sure you know that we do indeed provide a lot of food assistance around the world.
Simply put, it sounds like you aren't happy with the constitution and the representative form of government created thereby? Sounds like you want to put budget line items to a public referendum rather than having congress decide matters of taxing and spending as the constitution provides?
By people I mean citizens. It's funny that if someone doesn't think like you they have some mental disorder in your opinion. If you actually think citizens have any say (by voicing their concerns) with their congressman and senators , you've been misled. You can buy a vote but you can't voice your concerns and be heard. If you read the constitution the government isn't following it's original intent. The government wants to tell the citizens what they can and can't do. They also are taxing us too much and wasting our money. If you want a service to cost ten times what it should get the government to run it.
Semantics, but yes correct. Still doesn't change the fact that the VAST majority of the republican party are conservative and still fight to keep from spending money on the care of vets, police, fire, paramedics, or any other public servant.
I guess you think the state of the union is better now than it was in 2000?
So who are people really angry with? The guy who employed many people to figure this out after the government caused it or the government? If you say the government like you should, then would it be wise to vote for less of it?
Yes, less government is preferable to more but the reality is there is not a significant difference between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to the size of government. You get a few talking points and posturing but the reality is no one on either side of the house is looking to change the machine structurally.
Are you are voting for trump and expecting a smaller Governent?
I guess you think the state of the union is better now than it was in 2000?
16 Years ago? The end of the Clinton Administration. But you must be talking about the .com bust and Start of the Bush Presidency. Pre 9/11 the DOW dropped to 11,000, considering it was at 5,000 just 10 years earlier. In 2001 unemployment was at 4.7. The short, we're in a much better place now then we were during the recession caused by the .com bubble. We're in an even better place then we were in 2008
Do you not remember what happened in 2001 and the collateral effects? What about 2008? Yes, we're in a much better place!
Just because Fox news does not tell you it is, does not mean it's not. To use some facts:
- Unemployment 5.1 percent.
- Gas prices AM are under $2.00 in VA .
- Oil imports 4.5 million.
- GDP growth 3.7 percent.
- Dow @ 18,200
So when you say the State of The Union and "2000", I'm not sure what aspect you're referring to.
16 Years ago? The end of the Clinton Administration. But you must be talking about the .com bust and Start of the Bush Presidency. Pre 9/11 the DOW dropped to 11,000, considering it was at 5,000 just 10 years earlier. In 2001 unemployment was at 4.7. The short, we're in a much better place now then we were during the recession caused by the .com bubble. We're in an even better place then we were in 2008
Do you not remember what happened in 2001 and the collateral effects? What about 2008? Yes, we're in a much better place!
Just because Fox news does not tell you it is, does not mean it's not. To use some facts:
- Unemployment 5.1 percent.
- Gas prices AM are under $2.00 in VA .
- Oil imports 4.5 million.
- GDP growth 3.7 percent.
- Dow @ 18,200
So when you say the State of The Union and "2000", I'm not sure what aspect you're referring to.
I'm referring to 2000 unemployment Jan 4% to Dec 3.9% compared to 2016 Jan 4.9% to Sept 5%.
2000 the % of people in the USA living in poverty 11% compared to 2014 14.5% and even 2016 it's still 13.66%. You can remember all the details you want. My point is Republican or Democratic control it hasn't gotten any better in 16 years. Really it hasn't gotten better in the last 8 years. My point is it doesn't matter if you have a job if you're living in poverty when someone else in another country has a job and is doing well.
The Preamble s meaning and intent.
Section 8 Establish a uniform rule of naturalisation also to define and punish felonies.
Section 9 No person holding office can accept any form of present from a foreign country.
Amendment VI
I'm referring to 2000 unemployment Jan 4% to Dec 3.9% compared to 2016 Jan 4.9% to Sept 5%.
2000 the % of people in the USA living in poverty 11% compared to 2014 14.5% and even 2016 it's still 13.66%. You can remember all the details you want. My point is Republican or Democratic control it hasn't gotten any better in 16 years. Really it hasn't gotten better in the last 8 years. My point is it doesn't matter if you have a job if you're living in poverty when someone else in another country has a job and is doing well.
You are comparing clinton to obama. Not sure where republican factors into that.
If you think things haven't gotten better since 2008, you are just plain uninformed. Do you not remember President Bush signing the 700B financial services bailout bill? Do you not remember 6.5% unemployment? Do you not remember the insane number of homes going into foreclosure?
I'm referring to 2000 unemployment Jan 4% to Dec 3.9% compared to 2016 Jan 4.9% to Sept 5%.
2000 the % of people in the USA living in poverty 11% compared to 2014 14.5% and even 2016 it's still 13.66%. You can remember all the details you want. My point is Republican or Democratic control it hasn't gotten any better in 16 years. Really it hasn't gotten better in the last 8 years. My point is it doesn't matter if you have a job if you're living in poverty when someone else in another country has a job and is doing well.
As Shawn said, I don't see the Republican factor in this argument either. Your original statement being around the treatment of vets.
I'm pretty sure that the one variable you're leaving out of the above is population growth. Additionally, I have a suspicion that the increased poverty is equal to that is above the line. Not to mention a higher income level across the board. Given how far off base you are i'm not going to take the time to search stats either. Grant, Delta, and yourself can keep living blissfully in Sean Hannity's echo chamber.
The Preamble s meaning and intent.
Section 8 Establish a uniform rule of naturalisation also to define and punish felonies.
Section 9 No person holding office can accept any form of present from a foreign country.
Amendment VI
I don't think the preamble is enforceable. It is a statement of the point of view of the adopters in 1789. But for sake of argument how has it been breached? Do we the people no longer desire a more perfect union?
Article I Section 8 Congress has the power to adopt uniform rule of naturalization. You believe that Congress has not adopted standards to address the naturalization of new citizens? You've read Title 8 of the United States Code and find it not compliant with the constitution?
Article I Section 9 allows for gifts "with the consent of Congress." So they've made up their own rules to allow gifts. Seems compliant with the terms of the Constitution, no?
So wait a minute.... we do have a export base? Then what is your problem with trade? For the record, yes. I was wrong on the above.
Trying to morph the argument. Never said a dang thing about trade. The argument was about whether manufacturing can come back with policy or other means and the example was the auto industry of the 80's.
What I and all the other American workers (in what was formally the middle class) have an issue with all you liberal elitists trying to share our wealth to the 3rd world by exporting our jobs. You do this by bad trade deals and forcing unneeded regulations to increase production costs in America.
As Shawn said, I don't see the Republican factor in this argument either. Your original statement being around the treatment of vets.
I'm pretty sure that the one variable you're leaving out of the above is population growth. Additionally, I have a suspicion that the increased poverty is equal to that is above the line. Not to mention a higher income level across the board. Given how far off base you are i'm not going to take the time to search stats either. Grant, Delta, and yourself can keep living blissfully in Sean Hannity's echo chamber.
Have not listened to a single Hannity show in years.
Yes, less government is preferable to more but the reality is there is not a significant difference between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to the size of government. You get a few talking points and posturing but the reality is no one on either side of the house is looking to change the machine structurally.
Are you are voting for trump and expecting a smaller Governent?
You are mixing two different themes. One is physical size of government and the other is the encroachment into everyones pocketbook by the government. I am speaking to the latter.
The original point. People have this faux outrage at Trump about a loss of $900 million when all it was, was a government caused loss of wealth in the first place that was fought to the supreme court. Then people have faux outrage that he wrote it off. Guess what? Trump did not cause either of the events but the government did. Guess who had the ability to change both of those events? The Clintons. Bill and Hilary. Bill as president and Hillary as a Senator from New York.
deltahoosier
(shawndoggy)Join Date: Nov 2009
10-07-2016, 10:18 AM
You are comparing clinton to obama. Not sure where republican factors into that.
If you think things haven't gotten better since 2008, you are just plain uninformed. Do you not remember President Bush signing the 700B financial services bailout bill? Do you not remember 6.5% unemployment? Do you not remember the insane number of homes going into foreclosure?
That's why you will never see the real relationship between citizens and the Government. You have to separate every situation to sides , rather than as a whole. You separate Republican and Democrats to shift the blame. We're there not both Republicans and Democrats in office between 2000 and 2016? Are things better unemployment, poverty and race relations wise today? Who's is to blame? I suggest Congress,the Senate,the Presidents, the Supreme Court and the Federal reserve. The people can take the blame in Johns argument, but they elected candidates to move us forward and that hasn't happened. If someone hires you to do a job and you don't get it done,you likely won't still have that job.I'm not taking sides like you're assuming I am. I'm pointing out a continuing trend of failure.
That's why you will never see the real relationship between citizens and the Government. You have to separate every situation to sides , rather than as a whole. You separate Republican and Democrats to shift the blame. We're there not both Republicans and Democrats in office between 2000 and 2016? Are things better unemployment, poverty and race relations wise today? Who's is to blame? I suggest Congress,the Senate,the Presidents, the Supreme Court and the Federal reserve. The people can take the blame in Johns argument, but they elected candidates to move us forward and that hasn't happened. If someone hires you to do a job and you don't get it done,you likely won't still have that job.I'm not taking sides like you're assuming I am. I'm pointing out a continuing trend of failure.
The argument isn't over who's to blame. It over what you call failure or progression. You say we haven't progressed but when actually measured, instead of just what we feel like, we have progressed. To some highs and lows over the past 16 years.
If you want to tie a particular segment to a political party, then it's pretty easy to drill down into what party controlled what branch and which decisions drove that segment. But blanket statements like: you think we're better off now than we were in 2000 is easy argued.
I'll bite. How could they have changed a supreme court ruling or a tax write off?
My guess would be by trying to change the law since they were part of the system that voted in the laws. Trump was not part of that system. How can he even be in the least bit responsible for the laws that he is following?
You are mixing two different themes. One is physical size of government and the other is the encroachment into everyones pocketbook by the government. I am speaking to the latter.
Well, the two themes are linked pretty closely, if you do lots of interfering you needs lots of people with lots of nosey beaks and sticky fingers, if you do less you need less people, less machinery. So, no I don't really make a distinction. I and I restate there isn't a significant difference between them
So I ask again, do you think Trump will result in a smaller less intrusive government?
Have both sides released policy that can be costed and compaired, how does that shape up?
That's why you will never see the real relationship between citizens and the Government. You have to separate every situation to sides , rather than as a whole. You separate Republican and Democrats to shift the blame. We're there not both Republicans and Democrats in office between 2000 and 2016? Are things better unemployment, poverty and race relations wise today? Who's is to blame? I suggest Congress,the Senate,the Presidents, the Supreme Court and the Federal reserve. The people can take the blame in Johns argument, but they elected candidates to move us forward and that hasn't happened. If someone hires you to do a job and you don't get it done,you likely won't still have that job.I'm not taking sides like you're assuming I am. I'm pointing out a continuing trend of failure.
IMO, the voter attitude of taking an entrenched position of being a dem or republican and always voting that way is a massive part of the systems disfunction. Voters would get better results voting on competence of the candidate, a good republican is better than a bad dem and a good dem is better than a bad republican.
My guess would be by trying to change the law since they were part of the system that voted in the laws. Trump was not part of that system. How can he even be in the least bit responsible for the laws that he is following?
You're right, Obama, Clinton, and all of the above are more responsible for the law and can/should be criticized for it. But once again, just because Trump followed the law it hardly makes it ethical. Cheating on your wife/gf/bf/etc isn't illegal, but that doesn't make it right either. Just like lying.
Businesses face a looser set of tax code so that they can maneuver the economy to grow & create jobs. For example, business are allowed to receive money for services pre-tax. IE We don't pay taxes on that services rendered. A tax-id #, w-9, we're all set to receive money sans tax. Therefore, the companies balance, during that tax period, exist tax free. Taxes are due quarterly and face an extensive set of deductions. Now for the less dense part. We have a corporate apartment in midtown for visitors, out of town vendors or employees will use instead of getting a hotel. We pay for that with funds that have yet to be taxed. No where in the letter of the law does it say executives can't live in the apartment. This is also different than the common "i write off my rent for a home office" deduction. But any of us could live there and claim it isn't our full time residence
The short, I could use that loop hole to avoid paying income tax equal to the amount of rent I pay and it would be completely legal. There is also a host of other ways I could avoid any type of income tax by funneling purchases through the business. My truck could be a marketing expense, that LG curved TV could be for presentations, my families christmas presents could be client entertainment, I could pay our maid with visa gift cards from the grocery store, etc etc. However, none of this is why the tax code exist the way it does and abusing it comes with an inherent amount of risk. Some of which can be hidden from in the form of bankruptcy laws. But that is another rant......
"You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful -- I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait."
"And when you're a star they let you do it," Trump says. "You can do anything."
"I did try and f**k her. She was married,"
Trump then goes on to say that "when you're a star ... you can do anything."
"Grab them by the pussy," Trump says. "You can do anything."
Wow. Can you imagine if Obama was recorded saying this stuff? Trumpers are already posting "whats the big deal, hes just a guy talking to his buddies". Its one thing to say a casual remark like "wow look at her" but talking about "grabbing her pussy"?!
And pussygrabbing someone you know is married while you're married yourself... oh wait married three times and bragging about cheating... but but but Bill Clinton!!!
This isn't news tho is it? Narsassit buffoon confirms lack of class. This is like a drop of water in a Niagara Falls of prattish behavior. Republicans must be so proud he represents them with such class and distinction.
Anyhow, back to policy, what does this guy actually represent? Any details on tax reform policy or social services? -Crickets-
Boarder is right though... If Obama said anything remotely close to this on tape--him admitting to it--he and the entire black race would be condemned as sexual predators and deviants. Grant would be leading the charge on here calling him a disgusting "roach." But Trump does it, and it's gonna be "hey we're not electing a sunday school teacher."
OMG" pussy grabbing". Sorry Donald that ones gonna leave a mark. The only thing I can say is yup that sounds like somthing a Arrogant Billionar would say, and that's what he was. So IMO guilty as charged. Keep in mind this was 11 years ago the guy was not in public office or a politician. I'm not defending the guy just pointing it out. And don't forget Clinton was getting Blow Jobs by fat interns in the Oval Office and groping some pretty beastly ones on his way up but that dosent seem to be a problem, This is defiantly gonna not help his already slim margins. "palms to face shaking head"
My prediction will be some bomb shell comes out about Clinton and the scales will tip back the other way, Sorry folks we are screwed who ever wins
Buddy of mine was on Apprentice season 6 and he says there is plenty more where this came from.
You know that's actually pretty funny. You think the Libya debacle went as planned? Take country with ****ty dictator, "nation build" with crappy planning via HRC, and voila Libya current day. As far as Trump womanizing prior to being involved in politics.... I could care less. You're fearless leader, Bill, would **** anything that moved. That was AFTER he was POTUS.
If you want to impress me with more than a misspelled username that has a crappy exchange rate then tell me how HRC will save your current fearless leaders health care plan...
Last edited by VanillaGorilla; 10-08-2016 at 12:01 AM.
If you want to impress me with more than a misspelled username that has a crappy exchange rate then tell me how HRC will save your current fearless leaders health care plan...
If you guys weren't so against it then health care would go a lot smoother. Kind of how you guys were sooooo against Medicaid when that rolled out. But hey, you guys like that now right?
If you guys weren't so against it then health care would go a lot smoother. Kind of how you guys were sooooo against Medicaid when that rolled out. But hey, you guys like that now right?
I don't think it matters. Obamacare is a miserable failure. Look at how many people are down to a single choice. Providers are bailing because it isn't profitable and HRC wants to double down on it, tax the **** outta us and shove it further down America's throat.
16 Years ago? The end of the Clinton Administration. But you must be talking about the .com bust and Start of the Bush Presidency. Pre 9/11 the DOW dropped to 11,000, considering it was at 5,000 just 10 years earlier. In 2001 unemployment was at 4.7. The short, we're in a much better place now then we were during the recession caused by the .com bubble. We're in an even better place then we were in 2008
Do you not remember what happened in 2001 and the collateral effects? What about 2008? Yes, we're in a much better place!
Just because Fox news does not tell you it is, does not mean it's not. To use some facts:
- Unemployment 5.1 percent.
- Gas prices AM are under $2.00 in VA .
- Oil imports 4.5 million.
- GDP growth 3.7 percent.
- Dow @ 18,200
So when you say the State of The Union and "2000", I'm not sure what aspect you're referring to.
I absolutely love when people quote the unemployment rate. It's like a half truth these days. I want the under employment rate. If everybody is employed thats great, but if everybody including college grads are employed at $10 an hour, not so great.
Dow is there but also has been dropping. Anybody that reads about stocks all know we are in a bull market and wonder when the party is going to end.
You mention OIL but don't want to mention how the US OIL and GAS industry is still feeling it. Sister and her BF work in it (engineer & buyer), people were loosing their jobs left and right. The OIL Market is not that strong right now.
One Fact you choose to leave out was money velocity.
Money velocity is at a serious low. People are not spending money right now. Economy is not a strong as you are trying to make it out to be. I have no idea where it will end up, but man some of your "Facts" are flat out wrong.
You know that's actually pretty funny. You think the Libya debacle went as planned? Take country with ****ty dictator, "nation build" with crappy planning via HRC, and voila Libya current day. As far as Trump womanizing prior to being involved in politics.... I could care less. You're fearless leader, Bill, would **** anything that moved. That was AFTER he was POTUS.
LOL. Look at the last 2 guys GOP has had in office. Somalia, Iraq? How'd those go.
Do you want cheap gasoline or do you want your buddies in the oil industry to get paid the big bucks? You will find a way to complain about it no matter which way it goes. More hypocrisy. If your oil producing buddies hadn't gone on an oil raping tirade to get as much as possible back when it was still expensive then the price of oil would have stayed high. That's how supply and demand works. When supply is high it's good for the customer who wants to pay less. I thought you guys were all about praising the Gods of the free market. This is how the free market works. You can't have it both ways. I personally like the cheap gasoline. **** your oil industry buddies. They can collect a welfare check the same as anyone else.
The unemployment rate was a real number when Bush was president. Now it's a fallacy because Obama is president even though it's calculated the exact same way. More hypocrisy.
3.7% is an average over the last 8 years approx.. It's an election year. The economy always sucks during an election year. Not like it did in 2007 but it's still going to be a rough year.
Ya it's falling apart now. Top republicans are starting to call for him to step aside and let Pence top the ticket (almost as bad) and Ryan dropped him from what was supposed to be their big Wisconsin love fest.
I am a moderate Democrat who believes that we are better with two functioning parties to debate substantive ideas and policy for the betterment of the American people. When I say that the Republicans should be ashamed of themselves it is not that I hate all conservative ideology, rather it is because they have allowed the feckless and selfish Tea Party fringe to dominate their debates since 2010 and they have nominated one of the least qualified and offensive candidates of all time to run for POTUS. There were a couple of decent moderate Republicans in the field that would have been attractive to a lot of moderates and independent voters, instead you gave us the clown of the century. Shame on you Republicans for failing to do your civic duty by making informed decisions.
it's a joke to think that any of us actually have or have had a real say in who is nominated. This election, like many many others before it, was decided long before the nominees were whittled down to these two buffoons. The election process is just a smoke and mirror act in order to placate the masses.
Sorry I don't buy it Cliff. We had primaries and the people made their choice. The smoke is that the public is inherently shallow minded and easily duped.
it's a joke to think that any of us actually have or have had a real say in who is nominated. This election, like many many others before it, was decided long before the nominees were whittled down to these two buffoons. The election process is just a smoke and mirror act in order to placate the masses.
Who are these men behind the curtain? Even the Kochs are disgusted by this guy. Trump's rise is squarely on the shoulders of mostly white folks who relish their ignorance and inexperience and think that what's wrong with american politics is smart people with lots of experience.
The entire conservative intelligentsia long long ago abandoned this moron. It's precisely the little guys who are to blame for this clown.
LOL. Look at the last 2 guys GOP has had in office. Somalia, Iraq? How'd those go.
To be perfectly clear on my position, I don't believe in nation building. We are much better off with a petty dictator under our thumb. But....
Did you switch sides? I completely agree, Somalia and Iraq ended up as total disasters. Bill Clinton should not have pulled us out of Somalia after the battle of the black sea and the Obama Retreat in Iraq was a huge mistake.
VaG and I can agree on nation building. Funny how no one on this board (on the right) was complaining about it 12 years ago.
Pretty sick of the whiny little b*****es on the right all of a sudden acting like this mess came out of nowhere. Maybe this is a solid lesson on what happens when one party spends 8 years doing nothing but lying, obstructing, and spouting the most ridiculous hyperbole to rile up the uneducated morons rather than working constructively and making reasonable criticism of policy decisions (because there was plenty to be made). Every one of you who relished the birther BS, called Michelle Obama an ape, the list goes on and it's all on this board in black and white - you only have yourselves to thank for President Clinton part deux.
Eric, you are making some very BOLD assumptions about someone you have no knowledge about.
Lets look at some points, I am going to ignore your little rant about the Gas and Oil industry because it is very evident you have no idea what is actually happening in the industry.
First point, I have never liked using the Unemployment rate as a sole metric to illustrate economy strength. Nice jab, but you missed. Never said it was great when bush was in office. I do appreciate how you ignored the underemployment rate comment.
Second point about GDP. 2005 was the last year we saw a GDP sit about 3%. We haven't had an annual growth rate since 2005 that has seen above 3% so I am curious to where you are getting this magical 3.7% number, even with an average.
thank God for the republican obstruction. But it's okay for Oblummer to stomp his feet and take his ball and run when he doesn't get his way?. The only things that were ever going to pass through his office, were bills that were his way or no way.
I said it over 7 years ago, history will show that he was the worst president ever.....that is, unless liberals write the history books in order to prop up the black man....
I will still not cast my vote for Clinton. She is a disaster waiting to cover up
as far as nation building. I am not and never have been a fan. I would prefer that we stay out of the world wide human rights fight and let the United Nations do it. But, only contribute our share to the UN., no more, no less (men, money and power)
as far as nation building. I am not and never have been a fan. I would prefer that we stay out of the world wide human rights fight and let the United Nations do it. But, only contribute our share to the UN., no more, no less (men, money and power)
whoa whoa whoa, I'm going to give you a pass on that one cliff... I'm not sure ANYBODY wants to turn over our foreign policy to the U.N. That's black helicopter/new world order stuff.
thank God for the republican obstruction. But it's okay for Oblummer to stomp his feet and take his ball and run when he doesn't get his way?. The only things that were ever going to pass through his office, were bills that were his way or no way.
I said it over 7 years ago, history will show that he was the worst president ever.....that is, unless liberals write the history books in order to prop up the black man....
I will still not cast my vote for Clinton. She is a disaster waiting to cover up
as far as nation building. I am not and never have been a fan. I would prefer that we stay out of the world wide human rights fight and let the United Nations do it. But, only contribute our share to the UN., no more, no less (men, money and power)
You realize you pretty much summed up Ted Cruz is in your first paragraph right?
I said it over 7 years ago, history will show that he was the worst president ever.....that is, unless liberals write the history books in order to prop up the black man....
Of course liberals will write the history books. Liberals are winners and winners always write history.
Seems like just yesterday that someone on here was warning us about the bombshell that's about to drop on Hillary.
Of course liberals will write the history books. Liberals are winners and winners always write history.
Correction Liberals Re-Write history books to fit their agenda. I guess you have to know more about history to know that the books you May or May not have read, have a Hidden agenda and leave out the whole Truth. Example: did you know that at the Near the end of slavery that blacks owned more Slaves then whites? Did you know that Black slave owners took part in "Slave Breeding" a trade even whites slave owners looked down on. Of corse you don't! Because you only read liberal history books that told you so! History is History good and bad. It should not be written with a political agenda inside Let the educated decided what's right and what's wrong. Isn't that what collage is supposed to teach minds. Show both sides of a argument or problem and let the individual figures out the problem or solution.IMO modern education is taught by liberal teachers pumping out SJW's zombies.
Last edited by grant_west; 10-09-2016 at 10:31 AM.
If you don't know the Diff between "Writing History" & "Re-Writing History" to suit the liberal adgenda then I don't know what to say becides Keep drinking the Kool Aid
Example: did you know that at the Near the end of slavery that blacks owned more Slaves then whites? Did you know that Black slave owners took part in "Slave Breeding" a trade even whites slave owners looked down on. Of corse you don't!
boy! that sure was nice of all of those southern whites to fight and die for the rights of those black slave owners.
Why are racist pigs like Grant always to willing to LIE THEIR ASSES OFF with fake history in order to prove their point. If you had a point Grant, you wouldn't have to lie to make it. Repeating someone else's lie doesn't make it any less of a lie. You sure can tell that "thou shalt not lie" isn't in the commandments. Devout Christians are the biggest liars on the planet.
Well if google says it, it must be true. But still waiting for the cite that says that blacks owned more slaves than whites...? The site you cite to says about 12,000 slaves were owned by blacks out of 2m slaves. My Libral math says that 12k/2m isn't a majority.
1.Lib's have a agenda.
2.Lib's "Re-Write" History to Suit said agenda.
3.Lib's Teach this this New Re-Written History & social agenda threw school.
FACT a Republican view is all but void & even frowned on at campus, anyone who challenges a Liberal view or offers a Balanced or apposing view is Labled a Racist, Eric, is sounding all to familiar???
Education should not be taught it should be learned. Both side's of a view or thought process should be present at school. Let the educated decide whats right or wrong or what side they fall on.
Grant are you contradicting yourself on purpose? Do you understand the math involved - 12,000 vs. 2 million?
FWIW, I did learn that some blacks owned slaves in school - in LIBRUL CALIFORNIA! You might have too but I'm guessing based on the grammar and spelling (god love ya) that you might have missed a few days.
As for Trump, it'll be no surprise but still interesting to see how he contradicts himself in the debate today after saying this about the Clintons previously:
Speaking with Wolf Blitzer in November 1999 in video reviewed by CNN's KFile, Trump said Hillary Clinton had been through more public controversy than any women should have to bear.
"I think she's gone through terrible times," Trump told Blitzer in the interview. "I think she's been through more than any woman should have to bear — everything public. I mean, women go through this on a private basis and can't take it, she's on the front page of every newspaper every week with what went on in Washington."
A month before, in an interview with CNBC, Trump expressed a similar sentiment about Hillary Clinton and blasted the independent investigator Ken Starr as "a total wacko."
"I think she's a very, very good person," Trump said of Clinton. "I think she's had a very tough life the last few years. I mean, what could be tougher than that? I mean, can you imagine those evenings when he's just being lambasted by this crazy Ken Starr, who is a total wacko? There's the guy. I mean, he is totally off his rocker. And can you imagine being lambasted like that all day and then saying, 'Darling, what are we having for dinner?' It's gotta be pretty tough."
Trump also repeatedly dismissed and at times mocked Bill Clinton's accusers.
In a 2008 interview with CNN, Trump called the Lewinsky scandal "totally unimportant" and said it was "nonsense" that Republicans tried to impeach him.
In another interview, with CNBC in 1998 and first unearthed by the Washington Post, Trump called Clinton accuser Paula Jones "a loser." In August 1998, Trump again dismissed Jones, and said Bill Clinton was actually the victim.
"I don't necessarily agree with his victims," Trump said to Fox News' Neil Cavuto in a clip uncovered earlier in the year by the "Daily Beast." "His victims are terrible. He is, he is really a victim himself. But he put himself in that position."
But I understand that it might not be what your Libral teachers & "History Writers" wrote about, that dosent make it any less true.
Trumpers always resort to quoting a .org website. You wanna talk about pushing a f*cking agenda then quote a .org site?
Anybody who believe the bullsh*t you're spewing right now are also people who claim the holocaust was a hoax. Look at the websites you can find on that too. .org,.org,.org.
Linear Mode
