Reply With Quote
You're welcome.
I knew you were going to give me a gem of a response. Thanks for laugh.
Sorry so many people don't understand the concept I present.
... and seriously. I think you've missed the whole point of slavery. "Treating them well" has nothing to do with the fact that they were slaves (i.e., people who were the property of and wholly subject to another).
You're welcome.
I knew you were going to give me a gem of a response. Thanks for laugh.
Sorry so many people don't understand the concept I present.
Yes, I understand that concept.
Sorry you don't understand my reasoning.
Everybody understands your idiocy clearly. Lack of understanding has nothing to do with it.
As surely as the sun rises in the east....
Seriously?
Interesting profile on Bachman
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...urrentPage=all
From the New Yorker?
Why should I waste my time?
There's value in having a look through both sides. It's unfortunate you haven't figured it out yet.
Aren't you one that has a similar viewpoint to some things I link?
Sure. It never stopped me from reading what you link. I might not agree with it, but that doesn't mean I don't look at it.
Well, I admit to the bias of not wanting to read articles from a partisan magazine that routinely lies.
OK, find us something in that article that is a lie.
Of course you think it lies, even though you didn't read it.
That's completely logical
par for the lol course
setting them free was apparently not an option in the good ol daysI think we can assume they kept slaves knowing they were treated well, than have them sold to someone else who might not treat then so well.
Guys, just because WC says stupid things on here doesn't mean he's stupid.
In the same vein, just because a person slaps his wife, doesn't mean he supports wife-beating. He just knows that a wife needs a firm hand and strong guidance in order to produce the very best sandwich she's capable of making. A slap is just one of the tools in a husband's toolbox.
Consider this.
Is it better for a domesticated animal to live with people, or be set free.
Now please... I am not comparing slaves to animals. My point is that other whites, only accept them as slave. Freed in that time means no way to survive.
Where would they live? What would they do?
Please explain your reasoning then, lol. Even if I took seriously your wildly laughable claim that the founding fathers may not have agreed with slavery (even though they used slaves), it still doesn't corroborate Bachman's claim that the founding fathers actually "worked tirelessly to end slavery."
I am not comparing slaves to domesticated animals, merely suggesting they're analogous.
I guess they could have just freed them, and then negotiated some sort of contract whereby the slave was doing whatever they were doing as a slave, and being compensated in the same way.
You know, kinda like a job, but without that whole, "having to do it because you're owned by another person" stipulation.
Of course, we won't even bring up the fact that there WERE free black people in America (though not numerous), because that would torpedo his "no other choice" strawman.
cosigned
the Confederacy
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
