I have my board preferences not to show signatures or avatars.
I see.
Well that would explain why you thought I was the one to introduce the word Connecticut into the thread. Please rest assured it was Billyp who introduced it, not me.
Next?
"into the thread" - typical weasel words, pussy. The only reason billy.pilgrim put Connecticut into his signature was to mock your chauvinistic and wholly irrelevant pretensions about it, wherever you first posted them. Busted again, racist.
Thanks, of course that why I said it. Only useless idiots hold people to account for the mistakes and sun's of others.
Why does he lie when it's posted fir all to see?
Trump: “We had the safest border in the history of our country - or at least recorded history. I guess maybe a thousand years ago it was even better.”
If he holds today's Germans responsible for things Nazis did, and holds today's Japanese responsible for things done in WWII or before, and doesn't like the Russian dancers on "Dancing with Stars" because of what the Soviets (or Stalin/Lenin) did, and the descendants of everybody responsible for what their near and distant ancestors did, he's probably not going to like very many people.
If he holds today's Germans responsible for things Nazis did, and holds today's Japanese responsible for things done in WWII or before, and doesn't like the Russian dancers on "Dancing with Stars" because of what the Soviets (or Stalin/Lenin) did, and the descendants of everybody responsible for what their near and distant ancestors did, he's probably not going to like very many people.
But at least he would be following his own rules.
Trump: “We had the safest border in the history of our country - or at least recorded history. I guess maybe a thousand years ago it was even better.”
If he holds today's Germans responsible for things Nazis did, and holds today's Japanese responsible for things done in WWII or before, and doesn't like the Russian dancers on "Dancing with Stars" because of what the Soviets (or Stalin/Lenin) did, and the descendants of everybody responsible for what their near and distant ancestors did, he's probably not going to like very many people.
Where did I "hold responsible" those who are descended from evil?
Where did I "hold responsible" those who are descended from evil?
Big of you to admit to being pointless, Useless. Thanks, but we all knew it.
True that. Being "held responsible" doesn't mean one actually had anything to do with the event in question. It only means they will be liable to pay for the event in some way because of their association with it. A manufacturer might be "held responsible" for what somebody did with one of their products even if the doer wasn't the original customer and the product was used for something not intended. It's a stretch, but it happens. So the idea of ones ancestors owning slaves is pertinent only to some effort to hold responsible. Otherwise it's a meaningless blip on ones family history. I suppose that since slaves were property, subject to sale and inheritance as well as theft and damage, that it might be possible to draw some line through generations, but it probably wouldn't survive more than a couple, if that.
Big of you to admit to being pointless, Useless. Thanks, but we all knew it.
True that. Being "held responsible" doesn't mean one actually had anything to do with the event in question. It only means they will be liable to pay for the event in some way because of their association with it. A manufacturer might be "held responsible" for what somebody did with one of their products even if the doer wasn't the original customer and the product was used for something not intended. It's a stretch, but it happens. So the idea of ones ancestors owning slaves is pertinent only to some effort to hold responsible. Otherwise it's a meaningless blip on ones family history. I suppose that since slaves were property, subject to sale and inheritance as well as theft and damage, that it might be possible to draw some line through generations, but it probably wouldn't survive more than a couple, if that.
For those of us with southern ancestors, which doesn't include me, their families were much more likely to have suffered from the physical and economic cataclysm of the Civil War than they are to have retained any benefits from having been slavers. Nttawwt, but it's yet another reason that Useless is pointless.
Far more relevant to this discussion, not that Useless will ever admit it, is the fact that he and we have all benefited from White privilege for our post-Civil War ancestors and continuing for ourselves. That's the American, all of it, tragedy.
A clown with a flamethrower still has a flamethrower.
-- Charlie Sykes on MSNBC
1312. ETTD.
Where did I "hold responsible" those who are descended from evil?
True that. Being "held responsible" doesn't mean one actually had anything to do with the event in question. It only means they will be liable to pay for the event in some way because of their association with it. A manufacturer might be "held responsible" for what somebody did with one of their products even if the doer wasn't the original customer and the product was used for something not intended. It's a stretch, but it happens. So the idea of ones ancestors owning slaves is pertinent only to some effort to hold responsible. Otherwise it's a meaningless blip on ones family history. I suppose that since slaves were property, subject to sale and inheritance as well as theft and damage, that it might be possible to draw some line through generations, but it probably wouldn't survive more than a couple, if that.
Again, holding someone "responsible" for one's ancestors' past misdeeds is not the same as simply acknowledging those misdeeds. There is a difference.
Or is that too subtle a distinction?
However it could be argued that at least some of the descendants of slave owners in America today are reaping the benefits of the slavery. Such as those who have inherited property once worked by slave labor.
Where did I "hold responsible" those who are descended from evil?
Big of you to admit to being pointless, Useless. Thanks, but we all knew it.
True that. Being "held responsible" doesn't mean one actually had anything to do with the event in question. It only means they will be liable to pay for the event in some way because of their association with it. A manufacturer might be "held responsible" for what somebody did with one of their products even if the doer wasn't the original customer and the product was used for something not intended. It's a stretch, but it happens. So the idea of ones ancestors owning slaves is pertinent only to some effort to hold responsible. Otherwise it's a meaningless blip on ones family history. I suppose that since slaves were property, subject to sale and inheritance as well as theft and damage, that it might be possible to draw some line through generations, but it probably wouldn't survive more than a couple, if that.
So the shipping company, the port, the bank that financed the slave trade could be held responsible, but no responsibility carries on generation after generations.
I take that back, maybe it does to the businesses that built themselves from the slave trade, but we don't have a problem with the former nazi companies doing business here so I guess they were forgiven.
Maybe certain northerners should take note and apologize for calling me a racist embarrassed by my heritage.
Trump: “We had the safest border in the history of our country - or at least recorded history. I guess maybe a thousand years ago it was even better.”
Far more relevant to this discussion, not that Useless will ever admit it, is the fact that he and we have all benefited from White privilege for our post-Civil War ancestors and continuing for ourselves. That's the American, all of it, tragedy.
That, and if IIRC he was at one point attempting to guilt us for the possibility of having European ancestors who may or may not have benefitted from slavery while his own forefathers were supposedly squeaky clean and he sleeps well at night (NOT!).
Eamus Catuli~AC 000000000101010202020303010304 020405....Ahhhh, forget it, it's gonna be a while.
Far more relevant to this discussion, not that Useless will ever admit it, is the fact that he and we have all benefited from White privilege for our post-Civil War ancestors and continuing for ourselves. That's the American, all of it, tragedy.
That, and if IIRC he was at one point attempting to guilt us for the possibility of having European ancestors who may or may not have benefitted from slavery while his own forefathers were supposedly squeaky clean and he sleeps well at night (NOT!).
Yep, and in my case Useless turned learning that some of my ancestors were German Jews into an opportunity to express his vile antisemitism. viewtopic.php?p=153240#p153240
Idk if Useless has actual 'Good German' ancestors, but he certainly is an ideological descendant of them.
A clown with a flamethrower still has a flamethrower.
-- Charlie Sykes on MSNBC
1312. ETTD.
Again, holding someone "responsible" for one's ancestors' past misdeeds is not the same as simply acknowledging those misdeeds. There is a difference.
Or is that too subtle a distinction?
However it could be argued that at least some of the descendants of slave owners in America today are reaping the benefits of the slavery. Such as those who have inherited property once worked by slave labor.
At what point should a line be drawn?
O REALLY COMMENT STARTS HERE: Facts are facts, and are not dependent on whether a person acknowledges them, or even knows them for that matter. Maybe not all, but most people probably have no idea whether their ancestors owned slaves or, in some cases were slaves.
Undoubtedly, there are people owning property today that they may have inherited down the line from slave owners. Some of the old plantations that still exist as either working farms, exhibits, or event venues come to mind. So what? What line would you like drawn? Slavery was legal - despicable but legal - and then it wasn't, and slaves were turned loose, and the property passed through inheritance. Should the property have been burned to the ground? Oh wait - much of it was.
Big of you to admit to being pointless, Useless. Thanks, but we all knew it.
True that. Being "held responsible" doesn't mean one actually had anything to do with the event in question. It only means they will be liable to pay for the event in some way because of their association with it. A manufacturer might be "held responsible" for what somebody did with one of their products even if the doer wasn't the original customer and the product was used for something not intended. It's a stretch, but it happens. So the idea of ones ancestors owning slaves is pertinent only to some effort to hold responsible. Otherwise it's a meaningless blip on ones family history. I suppose that since slaves were property, subject to sale and inheritance as well as theft and damage, that it might be possible to draw some line through generations, but it probably wouldn't survive more than a couple, if that.
Again, holding someone "responsible" for one's ancestors' past misdeeds is not the same as simply acknowledging those misdeeds. There is a difference.
Or is that too subtle a distinction?
However it could be argued that at least some of the descendants of slave owners in America today are reaping the benefits of the slavery. Such as those who have inherited property once worked by slave labor.
At what point should a line be drawn?
Facts are facts, and are not dependent on whether a person acknowledges them, or even knows them for that matter. Maybe not all, but most people probably have no idea whether their ancestors owned slaves or, in some cases were slaves.
Undoubtedly, there are people owning property today that they may have inherited down the line from slave owners. Some of the old plantations that still exist as either working farms, exhibits, or event venues come to mind. So what? What line would you like drawn? Slavery was legal - despicable but legal - and then it wasn't, and slaves were turned loose, and the property passed through inheritance. Should the property have been burned to the ground? Oh wait - much of it was.
A clown with a flamethrower still has a flamethrower.
-- Charlie Sykes on MSNBC
1312. ETTD.
Again, holding someone "responsible" for one's ancestors' past misdeeds is not the same as simply acknowledging those misdeeds. There is a difference.
Or is that too subtle a distinction?
However it could be argued that at least some of the descendants of slave owners in America today are reaping the benefits of the slavery. Such as those who have inherited property once worked by slave labor.
At what point should a line be drawn?
Facts are facts, and are not dependent on whether a person acknowledges them, or even knows them for that matter. Maybe not all, but most people probably have no idea whether their ancestors owned slaves or, in some cases were slaves.
Undoubtedly, there are people owning property today that they may have inherited down the line from slave owners. Some of the old plantations that still exist as either working farms, exhibits, or event venues come to mind. So what? What line would you like drawn? Slavery was legal - despicable but legal - and then it wasn't, and slaves were turned loose, and the property passed through inheritance. Should the property have been burned to the ground? Oh wait - much of it was.
Wasn't the White House built by slaves?
Trump: “We had the safest border in the history of our country - or at least recorded history. I guess maybe a thousand years ago it was even better.”
Construction on the President’s House began in 1792. The decision to place the capital on land ceded by two states that permitted slavery—Virginia and Maryland—ultimately influenced the acquisition of laborers to construct its public buildings. The commissioners for the District of Columbia, charged by Congress to build the new city under the direction of President George Washington, initially planned to import workers from Europe to meet their labor needs. However, response to recruitment was dismal and soon they turned to African Americans—enslaved and free, but primarily enslaved—to provide the bulk of labor that built the White House, the United States Capitol, and other early government buildings. Most of these enslaved laborers were hired out from slave owners from southern Maryland, northern Virginia, and Washington, D.C. on a contract basis. The owners collected a wage from the commissioners while providing clothing and some medical care to the enslaved laborers. The commissioners typically provided workers with housing, two meals per day, and basic medical care.
It occurred to me that maybe we shouldn't ride California rail since severely abused Chinese mostly built the Central Pacific Railway on its way to Promontory Point. Probably need to stay off of state roads that have been around more than about 50 years or so since it would have been built with a lot of prison labor.
Turns out long lost footage show some of the abused Chinese working on the railroad. Coolie hats and all.
