Wikipedia: Crime in the United States has been recorded since colonization. Crime rates have varied over time, with a sharp rise after 1900, reaching a broad bulging peak between the 1970s and early 1990s. Since then, crime has declined significantly.
Oh, THAT's right. Back then, liberals actually HAD problems... they didn't have to make them up sonthatbthey could feel good about themselves like BLM supporters must.
Liberals didn't make you up. Nor did we vote for your White Nationalist president. As for what was going on 100 years ago -- Democrats have progressed. While racists like you want to go back to the past (make america great AGAIN).
As for your concern about there not being enough lynchings, it seems some of your fellow travelers are working to remedy that "problem".
btw - Last time I checked, suicides didn't fall into the "lynching" category. And those 5 nooses in Oakland... were handholds for a stupid American Ninja exercise freaks. Your paranoid anti-racist imagination could use a rest.
That murdering police officers are being "over charged" and Black men are lynching themselves is a product of your pro-racist denialism. The voters will give your White Nationalist BS a rest in November.
You want to return to the time before that when Blacks and women knew their place and the White male patriarchy ruled supreme. But YOU are dreaming. We're never going back.
I could give two f's about either blacks, minorities, or women. After all, we GAVE them the Vote. They never won the right for themselves. What men "give" is obviously a very "alienable" right. Just ask Native Americans, or Washington's 'Continentals'. Enlisted Whites in George Washington's Army didn't get the right to vote until the 1820/30 Tammany Societies started listing members on the property deeds to New York City real estate. After all, there were strict minimum "Property" requirements for all those exercising the franchise. :)
You lie about not caring. The proof is your BS assertion that men "gave" women and minorities these rights. The decades long fights were known as Women's Suffrage and the Civil Rights Movement. You'd probably like to go back to only White male property owners being able to vote.
Black men got the vote as a result of the Civil War. 600,000+ white men paid for it. Women's suffrage is a privilege that we gave our wives... they didn't "vote it for themselves".
So you're not one of those right wingers who claim the Civil War was fought over tariffs and states rights and not slavery? Anyway, 600k+ is the total killed on both sides. If both sides thought Black men should vote... why the hell did they fight and kill each other? In reality I doubt even every soldier on the Union side thought Black men should be able to vote.
Lincoln said in a 8/22/62 letter to Horace Greely that if he could have won the war w/o freeing the slaves, he would have done it. It was fought by Lincoln over UNION.
"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
The South was fighting to preserve slavery. The North was fighting to preserve the Union. Neither was fighting so Black men could vote. Obviously you agree with Pat Buchanan who thinks the Black descendants of slaves should be thanking Whites for the free boat ride we gave their ancestors. And Franco, who believes in The White Man's Burden (why he continually quotes the racist Kipling).
The South was fighting to Secede. The North, to prevent secession. When the delegates at the Hartford Convention threatened secession, where was the slavery issue?
Oh, that's right, Andrew Jackson, the racist Democrat white nationalist slave holder got elected, and they quickly dropped all the 'crazy' secession talk...
Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens on why the South was seceding: "[I]ts foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth".
As for Jackson being a racist white nationalist slave holder, that is precisely why Dotard admires him so much.
A "Confederate VP" as spokesperson is an oxymoron for the institution of a Confederacy. A confederacy represents a "collection" of divergent ideas and opinions united in the singular cause of maintaining social independence and opposing further social integration and/or permanent "Union" with intolerant a-holes.... which is why America becan with the Articles of Confederation and not a National Constitution.
The singular cause of succession was maintaining slavery. In agreement were the wealthy Southerners who benefited from it as well as the common (non-slave-holding) Southern white man who viewed Blacks as inferior. There was no divergence.
What "threat to slavery" did remaining within the Union pose to the South? Was Lincoln going to pass a Constitutional Amendment banning it? Secession had nothing to do with slavery, and everything to do with tariffs on Southern goods to benefit Northern industrialists.
Are you still sure you want to get rid of all those Confederate monuments? Another generation of imbeciles like you and you'll forget there ever was a war.
The smart people like me can read the history books. The "poorly educated" racists might forget. But they already believe the Civil War was fought over "states rights" and tariffs, not slavery. Proof you can't fix stupid.
For the last time, the American Civil War was not about states' rights. (excerpt) The Southern aristocracy feared the impending election of Abraham Lincoln would ultimately bring about nationwide emancipation. He and his supporters were known, after all, as "black Republicans", a term purposefully designed to conjure an image of radical abolitionism. Lincoln's famous "House Divided" speech of 1858 only aggravated tensions ... at the time of its delivery, Southern leaders heard these words and thought one thing: Lincoln aims to abolish slavery at the federal level. Lincoln aims to destroy our way of life. [end excerpt].
For the last time, the American Civil War was not about states' rights. (excerpt) The Southern aristocracy feared the impending election of Abraham Lincoln would ultimately bring about nationwide emancipation. He and his supporters were known, after all, as "black Republicans", a term purposefully designed to conjure an image of radical abolitionism. Lincoln's famous "House Divided" speech of 1858 only aggravated tensions ... at the time of its delivery, Southern leaders heard these words and thought one thing: Lincoln aims to abolish slavery at the federal level. Lincoln aims to destroy our way of life. [end excerpt].
Not that the Union refused to vacate the forts guarding their harbours? That sounds pretty short-sighted. Even the Spanish keep demanding that GB vacate Gibralter.
Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens on why the South was seceding: "[I]ts foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth".
It isn't.
ReplyDeleteWikipedia: Crime in the United States has been recorded since colonization. Crime rates have varied over time, with a sharp rise after 1900, reaching a broad bulging peak between the 1970s and early 1990s. Since then, crime has declined significantly.
Black lynching's are down too... so why all the concern now over black lives, Dervy? Where were the liberals 100 years ago?
ReplyDeleteOh, THAT's right. Back then, liberals actually HAD problems... they didn't have to make them up sonthatbthey could feel good about themselves like BLM supporters must.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLiberals didn't make you up. Nor did we vote for your White Nationalist president. As for what was going on 100 years ago -- Democrats have progressed. While racists like you want to go back to the past (make america great AGAIN).
ReplyDeleteAs for your concern about there not being enough lynchings, it seems some of your fellow travelers are working to remedy that "problem".
I'm no the one OVERcharging cops with murder based on their racism theories. That would be liberals
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeletebtw - Last time I checked, suicides didn't fall into the "lynching" category. And those 5 nooses in Oakland... were handholds for a stupid American Ninja exercise freaks. Your paranoid anti-racist imagination could use a rest.
That murdering police officers are being "over charged" and Black men are lynching themselves is a product of your pro-racist denialism. The voters will give your White Nationalist BS a rest in November.
ReplyDeleteKeep on Dreaming. You're promising a return to the chaos of '68. Good luck w/that.
ReplyDeleteYou want to return to the time before that when Blacks and women knew their place and the White male patriarchy ruled supreme. But YOU are dreaming. We're never going back.
ReplyDeleteI could give two f's about either blacks, minorities, or women. After all, we GAVE them the Vote. They never won the right for themselves. What men "give" is obviously a very "alienable" right. Just ask Native Americans, or Washington's 'Continentals'. Enlisted Whites in George Washington's Army didn't get the right to vote until the 1820/30 Tammany Societies started listing members on the property deeds to New York City real estate. After all, there were strict minimum "Property" requirements for all those exercising the franchise. :)
ReplyDeleteYou lie about not caring. The proof is your BS assertion that men "gave" women and minorities these rights. The decades long fights were known as Women's Suffrage and the Civil Rights Movement. You'd probably like to go back to only White male property owners being able to vote.
ReplyDeleteBlack men got the vote as a result of the Civil War. 600,000+ white men paid for it. Women's suffrage is a privilege that we gave our wives... they didn't "vote it for themselves".
ReplyDeleteSo you're not one of those right wingers who claim the Civil War was fought over tariffs and states rights and not slavery? Anyway, 600k+ is the total killed on both sides. If both sides thought Black men should vote... why the hell did they fight and kill each other? In reality I doubt even every soldier on the Union side thought Black men should be able to vote.
ReplyDeleteLincoln said in a 8/22/62 letter to Horace Greely that if he could have won the war w/o freeing the slaves, he would have done it. It was fought by Lincoln over UNION.
ReplyDelete"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
FYI, women can vote even without their husband's permission. And they can vote even if they don't have a husband. Who knew?
ReplyDelete"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it..."
ReplyDeleteSo, instead of 600k White men dying so black men could vote... the real number was 0.
So black men can't vote? Who knew?
ReplyDeletebtw - When was the great slave rebellion where the blacks freed themselves?
The South was fighting to preserve slavery. The North was fighting to preserve the Union. Neither was fighting so Black men could vote. Obviously you agree with Pat Buchanan who thinks the Black descendants of slaves should be thanking Whites for the free boat ride we gave their ancestors. And Franco, who believes in The White Man's Burden (why he continually quotes the racist Kipling).
ReplyDeleteThe South was fighting to Secede. The North, to prevent secession. When the delegates at the Hartford Convention threatened secession, where was the slavery issue?
ReplyDeleteOh, that's right, Andrew Jackson, the racist Democrat white nationalist slave holder got elected, and they quickly dropped all the 'crazy' secession talk...
Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens on why the South was seceding: "[I]ts foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth".
ReplyDeleteAs for Jackson being a racist white nationalist slave holder, that is precisely why Dotard admires him so much.
A "Confederate VP" as spokesperson is an oxymoron for the institution of a Confederacy. A confederacy represents a "collection" of divergent ideas and opinions united in the singular cause of maintaining social independence and opposing further social integration and/or permanent "Union" with intolerant a-holes.... which is why America becan with the Articles of Confederation and not a National Constitution.
ReplyDeleteThe singular cause of succession was maintaining slavery. In agreement were the wealthy Southerners who benefited from it as well as the common (non-slave-holding) Southern white man who viewed Blacks as inferior. There was no divergence.
ReplyDeleteDid any non-slave holding states leave the union?
ReplyDeleteWhat "threat to slavery" did remaining within the Union pose to the South? Was Lincoln going to pass a Constitutional Amendment banning it? Secession had nothing to do with slavery, and everything to do with tariffs on Southern goods to benefit Northern industrialists.
ReplyDeleteAre you still sure you want to get rid of all those Confederate monuments? Another generation of imbeciles like you and you'll forget there ever was a war.
ReplyDeleteThe smart people like me can read the history books. The "poorly educated" racists might forget. But they already believe the Civil War was fought over "states rights" and tariffs, not slavery. Proof you can't fix stupid.
ReplyDeleteFor the last time, the American Civil War was not about states' rights. (excerpt) The Southern aristocracy feared the impending election of Abraham Lincoln would ultimately bring about nationwide emancipation. He and his supporters were known, after all, as "black Republicans", a term purposefully designed to conjure an image of radical abolitionism. Lincoln's famous "House Divided" speech of 1858 only aggravated tensions ... at the time of its delivery, Southern leaders heard these words and thought one thing: Lincoln aims to abolish slavery at the federal level. Lincoln aims to destroy our way of life. [end excerpt].
ReplyDeleteLincoln didn't give a sh*t about slaves.
ReplyDeleteThe excerpt I posted doesn't say he did. Obviously your illiteracy is causing you confusion again.
ReplyDeleteIf the War was about slavery, and Lincoln didn't give a sh*t about it... if a, then b proves aagain that you're full of sh*t.
ReplyDeleteFor the last time, the American Civil War was not about states' rights. (excerpt) The Southern aristocracy feared the impending election of Abraham Lincoln would ultimately bring about nationwide emancipation. He and his supporters were known, after all, as "black Republicans", a term purposefully designed to conjure an image of radical abolitionism. Lincoln's famous "House Divided" speech of 1858 only aggravated tensions ... at the time of its delivery, Southern leaders heard these words and thought one thing: Lincoln aims to abolish slavery at the federal level. Lincoln aims to destroy our way of life. [end excerpt].
ReplyDeleteIt was about "Union", which BY DEFINTION implies (States Right vs Union).
ReplyDeleteHouse Divided vs... Union. It's real simple.
Yes, it IS simple. The states that joined the Confederacy were concerned about their right to determine that the owning of slaves should remain legal.
ReplyDeleteNot that the Union refused to vacate the forts guarding their harbours? That sounds pretty short-sighted. Even the Spanish keep demanding that GB vacate Gibralter.
ReplyDeleteConfederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens on why the South was seceding: "[I]ts foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth".
ReplyDeleteThat's one way of securing your property rights. Declare a scientific reason as to why you should own what you own.
ReplyDeleteOr pseudoscientific :(
ReplyDeleteLike climate science? lol!
ReplyDelete