Mass shootings at New Zealand mosques kill 49

Many of us believe the only reason the North was upset about slavery is they tended to own none and saw the labor provided by slaves as a benefit to the South that the North could not capitalize on.

Also slaves were taken from Africa but by far the majority of those were transported to the Caribbean islands. I wonder if this sort of fighting happens in those islands? We find it to be a hornets nest in parts of the USA.

Abe did have one solution he wanted to do. HE wanted to buy slaves, gather them up, ship them to other nations shores. He gave examples of places to send them.

 

No, there isn't. Sorry, but you're delusional if you think this is true.

There are PLENTY of 'reasons', (ie the guy is a murderous nutter) all more likely, before you ever get to Dumpf.

 

Here's more:

 

Who are you going to blame when Muslim terrorists strike back in New Zealand and kill **** ton of innocent people (given that the chances of a retribution hit are 100%)? You should check out the Muslims promising massacre in vengeance.. I have provided one for you.

Remember it was your side that brought this incompatible ideology to the West. The bloodshed will always been on your hands (no matter which side does the killing).

 

They will blame Trump, of course. Or Chelsea Clinton. Or Jesus. Or I dunno .. anyone or anything but the murderous ideology which is at the root of most of this stuff.

They will defend the indefensible, when it suits them. Conditional 'compassion', not even halfway hidden.

 

And what was your response?

 

That is too funny!! The only freedom the slavers wanted to hold onto was the freedom to keep millions of people in eternal slavery to them.

 

You prefer not to understand.

 

After I became aware of Lysander Spooner's arguments made shortly after the end of that damned war, I believe you and I are essentially supporting his arguments.

What pisses me off royally is people today do not quietly discuss that war, it evokes utter bitterness and hatred between the debaters. Our side taking the side of the way the constitution was designed and they support the changes made once the war ended.

https://mises.org/library/no-treason-constitution-no-authority-0

 

You have told me you blessed the slave ownership on the part of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson because in your opinion they did a hell of a lot of good.

Which of the states that seceded did a hell of a lot of bad in order to get invaded by Abe the outlaw Lincoln?

 

i asked you why you supported the slavery of George Washington to be told by you because he did a lot of good. I suppose he did a lot of good as a then traitor to his country. While I am not against the way he defeated England at all, at least I realize he was a traitor. I think you also learned of the execution of Private Slovik when I was asked about obeying the constitution or something like that.

Since you see slavery as an evil, do you see the execution of troops as evil? I believe when you check Washington out, he believed in such deaths.
https://allthingsliberty.com/2016/02/george-washington-convenes-a-firing-squad/

 

Today the very constitution is in shambles due to the bitterness caused by that damned war. I really became inflamed when at Manassas civil war visitors building, reading the plaques on the wall, I learned for the first time ever, the enormous cost of life of the war.



i knew all about Sumter. I also researched the distance to the fort from the Confederates cannons. i also learned the extent of the damage done by said cannons. I also learned no troops were injured.

It was as if a man was outside a person's home firing at the home. The damage to the home was broken windows. No harm to any occupants but the sentence by the court of law was death for the man on the sidewalk. The man tried to kill but screwed up. I would never support the death penalty for injury to windows. I saw the damage to Ft. Sumter this same way.

Abe the outlaw did not so much as invade the offending state, he picked on VA only because it was across the Potomac River and an easy victim.

 

Were they? Then in the commemoration speeches at the statutes, surely you read all of them? So tell us which sent the message to blacks?

You seem to me to have totally discounted the total destruction visited on states who were guilty of fighting for the states freedom from DC. There were far too few states in existence in 1861 to allow several other states to rule over them. The South asked for no territory existing in the rest of the states. All they wanted was leave us alone. (us speaking for the states) Abe was in no danger of being kicked off his throne. Abe had his hands full fighting the North who also wanted no part of his war. Abe had a rebellion on his hands north of the South. You may want to read letters to Abe from Governors who told him do not go to war. Leave the South alone.

 

Speaking of racist presidents, to this day, and I do not think you are man enough to persuade me otherwise, the way Obama rushed to the side of the thugs in Ferguson as he did was very racist.

Never in a million years had those been white thugs destroying a city would Obama have rushed to them to side with them. Obama never stopped being a racist.

 

There is universal agreement that Democrats in America hate Trump to the point they blame him for all evil, but you can bet they do not credit him for any good.

 

I bet you loved George Washington and Thomas Jefferson who were 2 American slave owning presidents, huh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_who_owned_slaves

What was amusing is that General Grant owned slaves yet Robert E. Lee never did. Lee married the daughter of General Washington and upon his death had the task of freeing some of his slaves. Lee's wife freed her own slaves obtained by her father.

In total, twelve presidents owned slaves at some point in their lives, eight of whom owned slaves while serving as president. George Washington was the first president to own slaves, including while he was president. Zachary Taylor was the last president to own slaves during his presidency, and Ulysses S. Grantwas the last president to have owned a slave at some point in his life.

Slave owning was common among early presidents; of the first twelve, only John Adams (2) and his son John Quincy Adams (6) never owned slaves, although two of the others (Martin Van Buren and William Henry Harrison) did not own slaves while serving as president.

The U.S. president who owned the most slaves was Thomas Jefferson, with 600+ slaves,[1] followed by George Washington, with 200 slaves. The presidents who owned the fewest slaves were Martin van Buren, with 1 slave, and Ulysses S. Grant, who had owned only one slave, as the least among former slave owners.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_who_owned_slaves

 

Those quotes I posted are out of this forum hence many on this "side of the fence" also approve of the attacks

 

Many would, it's the way Islam treats people, so when others retaliate in the same manor.
People look at it from the human angle.

 

Gun laws had nothing to do with this. No, he clearly was influenced by others.

 

He was influenced by many others. Some real, and some imaginary. You're right as far as gun laws go. They didn't and couldn't have prevented the massacre. The terrorist had constructed homemade bombs ...

 

Here's more:

 

Here's more:

 

I don't think one could begin to defend the notion that he was the single greatest soldier unless by his nation you mean the confederacy. Demerits at West Point couldn't be a more meaningless stat. What accomplishments outside of the civil war? He wasn't all THAT anti-slavery. He had a choice. He could have been pro-American and anti-slavery, he chose neither. He was a hell of a general, and honestly a probably relatively decent guy, but he was an American enemy, and he did fight to defend slavery. His home state wouldn't have been attacked if it had ended slavery. I think there's also reason to believe he would have been for tearing down those monuments.

https://www.businessinsider.com/confederate-statues-meaning-timeline-history-2017-8
If you look at the timeline of when these things were built, it's pretty obvious that their construction had nothing to do with honoring soldiers, even if the cause of those soldiers wasn't unjust. I mean, rommel was a hell of a general too. Doesn't mean we fly the nazi flag or build statues of him in chicago.

 

I agreed. That being said, there is a massive difference between the two, and the differential in trump's responses are far far greater than obama's ever was. Also, obama wasn't the leader of a muslim country.

 

Here's more: