LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Wingnut media will not let the Republicans forget Benghazi

Sean Renaud said:
I'm not SRplt for the record. I do "scoff" at it however but that wasn't me.

And it is a fact to be "Swept under the rug" because the only reason you care is because black people owning slaves mitigates how awful slavery was. As if finding out that there was a cabal of Nazi Jews would magically make the holocaust anything different. It is not. But the reason to bring it up is that. Just like the "fact" that the first slave owner in America was black. Which is true if you twist the facts around a bit. At the time nobody made a distinction between the Caribbean and the Continental US and the US wasn't a country yet but the first man to own a slave in America proper was black. Which. . .okay sure. Whatever.

No, you bring up google searches because you don't want to debate your actual points. There are millions of links saying that 9/11 was an inside job by Bush and Chenney it proves nothing at all.
Click to expand...

Are you saying we should rewrite history in order to make parts of it even worse than they were?

I use Google searches to prove statements I make, rather than digging through the page and finding links that agree with me. There are crackpot sites such as Slate and Salon and Breitbart but we all know about them and can disregard what they say.
 
Boxlicker101 said:
Are you saying we should rewrite history in order to make parts of it even worse than they were?

I use Google searches to prove statements I make, rather than digging through the page and finding links that agree with me. There are crackpot sites such as Slate and Salon and Breitbart but we all know about them and can disregard what they say.
Click to expand...

We're not rewriting history. We're reporting on the important details. And this who owned the slaves doesn't make it worse or better. The majority of owners were still white and the majority of slaves still black. And freed whites didn't face ANY of the same stigmas.

Google searches don't prove the statements you make. They prove ghat google can produce links. And yes there are sources so bad they should be disregarded. I assume Brietbart is full of shit until proven otherwise. I assume Salon is badly slanted. There are quality sources and even those sources often times will tell you where they got their information if you care to double check either their facts or their conclusions.

I actually tend to favor Fox because their webpage is quite easy to work with as opposed to many other sites and it's written at like a 3rd grade level, I tend to try and find a second source but hey.
 
While we're "rewriting" history to include there were black slave owners why don't we emphasize blacks in the Revolution. Hell call me when the FIRST MAN TO DIE FOR THIS COUNTRY is a household name on par with say. . .a guy who's famous for being a right twat and signing his name really really big so the King could read it without his glasses. Don't get me wrong, that's cute and all but by comparison? But instead of a place along side (if not above) John Hancock and Benedict Arnold the first man to die for our freedom is a trivia question nobody gets right.
 
Boxlicker101 said:
I was responding to the way you seemed to scoff at the idea of black people having owned slaves. It was a fact and should not be swept under the rug, any more than slavery should be.

I link to a Google search rather than to individual items in that search just to emphasize what I am saying. Some links are more reliable than others but, when there are millions links saying the same thing, you can pretty much accept it as fact. :eek:
Click to expand...

You're off by 150 years. I scoffed at President Obama owning slaves. (Can you understand where you went wrong there? :rolleyes:)
 
Sean Renaud said:
While we're "rewriting" history to include there were black slave owners why don't we emphasize blacks in the Revolution. Hell call me when the FIRST MAN TO DIE FOR THIS COUNTRY is a household name on par with say. . .a guy who's famous for being a right twat and signing his name really really big so the King could read it without his glasses. Don't get me wrong, that's cute and all but by comparison? But instead of a place along side (if not above) John Hancock and Benedict Arnold the first man to die for our freedom is a trivia question nobody gets right.
Click to expand...

You are probably referring to Crispus Attucks, who was one of several men killed by British sentries in what is known as The Boston Massacre. I knew this without looking it up, and it is fairly common knowledge. This was several years before the actual start of the revolution. The first person killed at the battle of Lexington was Asahel Porter, but I don't know much about him, and his name is not at all well known.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord#First_shot
 
Boxlicker101 said:
You are probably referring to Crispus Attucks, who was one of several men killed by British sentries in what is known as The Boston Massacre. I knew this without looking it up, and it is fairly common knowledge. This was several years before the actual start of the revolution. The first person killed at the battle of Lexington was Asahel Porter, but I don't know much about him, and his name is not at all well known.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord#First_shot
Click to expand...

Common knowledge? I suppose that's a broad statement. One I would disagree with though. I don't hear his name except in trivia mode and I certainly don't hear anybody celebrating him. Now I am constantly told about the first black man to own slaves. You don't find that the least bit peculiar?
 
Sean Renaud said:
Common knowledge? I suppose that's a broad statement. One I would disagree with though. I don't hear his name except in trivia mode and I certainly don't hear anybody celebrating him. Now I am constantly told about the first black man to own slaves. You don't find that the least bit peculiar?
Click to expand...

Well, I knew his name and I am not particularly educated. While we are on the subject, there were five men killed at the Boston Massacre. Can you tell me the names of the others?

As for the name of the first black slave owner, I had never known that until I googled the subject.

It is really kind of a stretch to describe the Boston Massacre as part of the American revolution. For one thing, the Americans were not armed except with rocks and snowballs. For another, it happened over five years before the Battle of Lexington. More trivia: Can you tell me the names of the rebels killed at that first skirmish? If not, why do you know so much about Attucks and so little about the other men killed?
 
So what's first black slave owner dude's name? Gotta have one, yes?

Can't just keep referring to him sideways if you want to make a distraction point in this Republican Benghazi Fail thread using #BlackPeople.
 
His name was was Anthony Johnson and it's a lot of very technical bullshit that works when you're trying really hard to get around the reality.

On subject the Boston Massacre is generally accepted as the "beginning" of the conflict. Dont' like it? Take it up with the historians but the fact that I can't name the others who died in the Massacre isn't the point. They weren't the first (officially) and didn't stand out for any other particular reason. I also couldn't name half the signers of the Declaration. Hell I'd be willing to bet even if you simplified it to something like how many US presidents signed it and what were their names that they'd STILL get it wrong. And we could easily go through a lot more stuff that doesn't seem to get much play by comparison.

And again it gets play for one reason and you already mentioned it. It makes slavery less awful if blacks did it too. I'm still uncertain how the existance of Japanese men in the military made Internment less awful but that's your opinion not mine.
 
It's a complex picture.

Free blacks were perceived "as a continual symbolic threat to slaveholders, challenging the idea that 'black' and 'slave' were synonymous." Free blacks were sometimes seen as potential allies of fugitive slaves and "slaveholders bore witness to their fear and loathing of free blacks in no uncertain terms."[177] For free blacks, who had only a precarious hold on freedom, "slave ownership was not simply an economic convenience but indispensable evidence of the free blacks' determination to break with their slave past and their silent acceptance – if not approval – of slavery."[178]

The historian James Oakes in 1982 notes that "[t]he evidence is overwhelming that the vast majority of black slaveholders were free men who purchased members of their families or who acted out of benevolence."[179] After 1810 southern states made it increasingly difficult for any slaveholders to free slaves. Often the purchasers of family members were left with no choice but to maintain, on paper, the owner–slave relationship. In the 1850s "there were increasing efforts to restrict the right to hold bondsmen on the grounds that slaves should be kept 'as far as possible under the control of white men only.'"[180]

In his 1985 statewide study of black slaveholders in South Carolina, Larry Koger challenged the benevolent view. He found that the majority of black slaveholders appeared to hold at least some of their slaves for commercial reasons. For instance, he noted that in 1850 more than 80 percent of black slaveholders were of mixed race, but nearly 90 percent of their slaves were classified as black.[181] Koger also noted that many South Carolina free people of color operated small businesses as skilled artisans, and many owned slaves working in those businesses.
Click to expand...
 
NOIRTRASH said:
He's still Speaker as of today, Sparky. The plan was to go 1 November. It aint 1 November, dear.
Click to expand...

Again, you apparently didn't read the original post.

Also, how does a lame duck Speaker function? Answer: not at all. As good as gone. But then, I don't expect to see you exhibiting any knowledge of how government works any time soon.
 
wonkette replied to the trolls who regurgitated what they were fed by the Wingnut media.

Reality and truth does not make much of an impression on trolls, that make statements that are critical of Hillary Clinton.

They do not seem to read any publications that are not sponsored by Wingnut media.

*sigh*

Fact resistant. Evidence resistant. Science resistant. Reality resistant ?
 
Boxlicker101 said:
There were black slave owners in the ante-bellum South. There were also white slaves.


ETA:
Here are literally millionss of references to the first statement: https://www.google.com/search?sourc...0i131j0l4.0.0.0.11526...........0.OEcbdC-Ee3M
https://www.google.com/search?sourc...p..1.0l5.0.0.1.388550...........0.huXlTfXz24M
And here are millions of references to the latter statement:https://www.google.com/search?sourc...p..1.0l5.0.0.1.388550...........0.huXlTfXz24M
Click to expand...

"But...but.....blacks owned slaves toooooooooooo"

Voted #2 in all-time white slavery rationalizations
 
Not me, I stopped having fun some time in 2012. Now I'm resisting the urge to give into the spite master.
 
Aglaopheme said:
I know it's wrong, but I will take delight in ever moment of this fiasco.
Click to expand...

As will we all, over the next year and a month, more or less, take guilty yet justified Schadenfreude pleasure in the trials and tribulations of House Speaker Eddie Munster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

THROBBS
ABC Exhausting, though not Exhaustive
Replies
9
Views
9K
Sunlover102
Sunlover102
Obama_Sucks
Your Assignment: Compile Obama’s Flip-Flops
2
Replies
33
Views
5K
Pad_Foot
Pad_Foot
K
Buffalo Beast's "The 50 Most Loathsome Americans of 2010"
Replies
19
Views
3K
Balladeer08
Balladeer08
krastner
Is Osami Next????
Replies
6
Views
199
krastner
krastner
Purple Haze
The Warren Report: 40 years later
2 3
Replies
58
Views
1K
Ham Murabi
H
Back
Top