• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are Doc Rich & Thomas Sowell right about slavery & reparations?

Are Doc Rich & Thomas Sowell right?


  • Total voters
    32
Irrelevant, because Pol Pot led the Khmer Rouge remnants throughout the entire period right up until 1997, as has already been proven.
 
No amount of squirming can change the fact that the US provided diplomatic support to the Pol Pot led Khmer Rouge remnants after the Vietnamese booted them out of power.
 
No amount of squirming can change the fact that the US provided diplomatic support to the Pol Pot led Khmer Rouge remnants after the Vietnamese booted them out of power.


Moreover, we told the Chinese explicitly that in our view Pol Pot was an abomination and that the United States would have nothing to do with him—directly or indirectly.

Remnants =/= Pol Pot

Find in Page : Pol Pot 0/0
 
Didn’t say the CSA “wanted” anything; I said they had the total right to their own land. The fact that Lincoln provoked a war to take that right away does not change the Tenth Amendment’s stipulations, nor does your juvenile blather about “takie-backsies.” If such property rights were as absolute as you pretend, then the colonies should have always remained the property of Great Britain. As usual, the extent of your ignorance boggles the mind.

Now you’re just copying me. I already said your rabid hatred of the CSA meant nothing because you couldn’t condemn slavery in any other form, just like you can’t condemn Putin. So your one-issue morality is utterly pathetic and irrelevant.

The number of Communist victims who escaped Russia was a pitiful trickle next to the Black slaves who escaped the South, for the simple reason that Stalin brutalized the majority of his people so badly that most couldn’t think how to escape. Black slaves were motivated by Northern rhetoric to escape, whether the Northerners really wanted Black people in their own bailiwick or not. Splat you go again.

Technically the lands on which Fort Sumter and Norfolk Naval yards sat were Federal Property.
 
And yet their actual actions show otherwise. The US supported the “abomination” keeping its UN seat right up until 1993, despite the fact that it A) was controlled by Pol Pot and B) didn’t actually control just about any of the country. The US also sanctioned Vietnam for overthrowing the Khmer Rouge

From previous source

“ According to Michael Haas, despite publicly condemning the Khmer Rouge, the U.S. offered military support to the organization and was instrumental in preventing UN recognition of the Vietnam-aligned government.[28] Haas argued that the U.S. and China responded to efforts from the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) for disarming the Khmer Rouge by ensuring the Khmer Rouge stayed armed, and that U.S. efforts for merging the Khmer Rouge with allied factions resulted in the formation of the CGDK. After 1982, the U.S. increased its annual covert aid to the Cambodian resistance from $4 million to $10 million.[29] Haas's account is corroborated by Singaporean diplomat Bilahari Kausikan, who recalled: "ASEAN wanted elections but the U.S. supported the return of a genocidal regime. Did any of you imagine that the U.S. once had in effect supported genocide?" Kausikan described the disagreement between the U.S. and ASEAN over the Khmer Rouge as reaching the threshold that the U.S. threatened Singapore with "blood on the floor".[30]”
 
And yet their actual actions show otherwise. The US supported the “abomination” keeping its UN seat right up until 1993, despite the fact that it A) was controlled by Pol Pot and B) didn’t actually control just about any of the country. The US also sanctioned Vietnam for overthrowing the Khmer Rouge

From previous source

“ According to Michael Haas, despite publicly condemning the Khmer Rouge, the U.S. offered military support to the organization and was instrumental in preventing UN recognition of the Vietnam-aligned government.[28] Haas argued that the U.S. and China responded to efforts from the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) for disarming the Khmer Rouge by ensuring the Khmer Rouge stayed armed, and that U.S. efforts for merging the Khmer Rouge with allied factions resulted in the formation of the CGDK. After 1982, the U.S. increased its annual covert aid to the Cambodian resistance from $4 million to $10 million.[29] Haas's account is corroborated by Singaporean diplomat Bilahari Kausikan, who recalled: "ASEAN wanted elections but the U.S. supported the return of a genocidal regime. Did any of you imagine that the U.S. once had in effect supported genocide?" Kausikan described the disagreement between the U.S. and ASEAN over the Khmer Rouge as reaching the threshold that the U.S. threatened Singapore with "blood on the floor".[30]”

Not one word about Pol Pot.....

Why?

7 January 1979
 
Pol Pot was the LEADER of the Khmer Rouge, and would remain the leader of the group until 1997, as has been repeatedly demonstrated to you.
 
Technically the lands on which Fort Sumter and Norfolk Naval yards sat were Federal Property.
One legal theory asserts that the Federal government technically "owns" none of the land under its control except Washington DC, and that the Fed actually holds such possessions in trust for the States. This theory is almost certainly rooted in the founders' idea that the States abide in a compact with the Federal government and that said compact can be dissolved if the government acts badly. So it's not surprising that Lincoln, the man who did the most to centralize government power, had no regard for South Carolina's re-appropriation of the fort. If I can garner more detail on the "trust theory" I'll probably post it here, just so we can be treated to more rants from Tigerace about how Fort Sumter was absolutely not no way any takie-backsie, even in a country that had been taken back from another government to which the colonists were theoretically loyal.
 
One legal theory asserts that the Federal government technically "owns" none of the land under its control except Washington DC, and that the Fed actually holds such possessions in trust for the States. This theory is almost certainly rooted in the founders' idea that the States abide in a compact with the Federal government and that said compact can be dissolved if the government acts badly. So it's not surprising that Lincoln, the man who did the most to centralize government power, had no regard for South Carolina's re-appropriation of the fort. If I can garner more detail on the "trust theory" I'll probably post it here, just so we can be treated to more rants from Tigerace about how Fort Sumter was absolutely not no way any takie-backsie, even in a country that had been taken back from another government to which the colonists were theoretically loyal.

All incorrect as it applies to Fort Sumter and other Federal lands at the time of the civil war.

South Carolina voluntarily ceded the fort and the lands long before Lincoln took office.

South Carolina also fired on a Federally chartered steamer intended to supply Ft. Sumter. This too occured before Lincoln took office.

South Carolina committed two clear acts of war before Lincoln took office.
 
All incorrect as it applies to Fort Sumter and other Federal lands at the time of the civil war.

South Carolina voluntarily ceded the fort and the lands long before Lincoln took office.

South Carolina also fired on a Federally chartered steamer intended to supply Ft. Sumter. This too occured before Lincoln took office.

South Carolina committed two clear acts of war before Lincoln took office.

Okay, so you're in the camp that says "no takey-backsies" and believes that the Federal government's rights overrule those of the States, and that the founders signed away the rights of all their descendants by binding them into an eternal union. 😴 😴
Do you have any moral justification of that stance, or will you too quote Texas vs. White as if it were as unassailable as, oh, I don't know-- Roe vs. Wade?
 
Okay, so you're in the camp that says "no takey-backsies" and believes that the Federal government's rights overrule those of the States, and that the founders signed away the rights of all their descendants by binding them into an eternal union. 😴 😴
Do you have any moral justification of that stance, or will you too quote Texas vs. White as if it were as unassailable as, oh, I don't know-- Roe vs. Wade?

No, I am back to the facts.
 
Gee, mainly because it wasn’t “accurate” in any way, shape or form. Considering the fact that Great Britain nearly went to war with the United States over a pig being shot, your hysterical sputtering “but they lost more real property” than the US(which, btw, isn’t even close to being true; the CSA was substantially larger than the 13 Colonies had been) is laughable, because England, or any other country on earth, would have defended itself— as the US did— against an attack on its soldiers on government property.

Uh.....yes. A sizable chunk of western Poland had been formally German territory. How on earth do you not know this? I get that Lost Causers are pathetically ignorant, but you take it to a whole new level.

Ah, so now when faced with the fact that your claim that people were terrorized into not wanting to flee at all is a blatant lie, you cowardly flail about frantic to find some other excuse.Oh look, more tearfully sobbing about how the “poor poor” slavers you admire so much had their “bottom line” hurt by people fleeing. Attempting to defend the Fugitive Slave Act is HILARIOUSLY hypocritical given your sputtering about the 10th Amendment.

No, I pointed out the Cuban “exiles” had a LONG history of terrorism.....which they do. You being triggered by that fact can’t change it bud😂
Haha, you just really love that stupid pig story, though clearly the pig was just an excuse for hostilities, the same way Sumter was Your Slaver Hero's excuse for violating the intent of the Tenth Amendment.

Ho hum, everyone knows the excuse Hitler used to attack Poland, but it has nothing to do with whether or not Germany had the actual right to invade. You've made another of your false comparisons, because there was no Constitutional provision linking Germany to Poland. But there was a provision in the American Constitution saying that Your Slaver Hero didn't have the right to overrule secession, and in your titanic ignorance, you continue to value a few acres of alleged Federal property over the principles of the Tenth Amendment-- which is not surprising, since all of your posts show that you have no principles.

Now you must be feigning ignorance, since the whole Revolutionary War was indeed one in which England fought back when their claim to government property was violated. That like the Civil War had nothing to do with soldiers being attacked, though I'm sure English rulers too manipulated the populace with that emotional appeal, just as Your Slaver Hero did. But England lost the right to control the colonies because they didn't give representation, and the CSA applied the same principles when the North tries to screw them over-- though NOT by getting rid of slavery, since Your Slaver Hero was OK with its indefinite continued existence.

Ha ha again; I didn't defend the Fugitive Slave Act. I said that its existence proves how much the runaway slaves hurt the bottom line of the slave owners, so that they got that act passed. The comparison was to your Commie buddies, whose only reaction to defections was to tighten the screws on their own people more. Boy do you love the taste of canyon floor!
 
More cowardly flailing from you, as usual. You frantically tried to downplay and defend Batista’s atrocities, and I showed, quite clearly, why his people were so desperate to topple the American backed tyrant— and why no amount of hysterical screeching about “communism” and “pinkos” can change the facts.

Pointing out the reality about your idols isn’t “whataboutism”; it’s a literal fact.

Cuba had every right to offer to house Soviet missiles; they were a sovereign state, no matter how much the US hated that fact. The US probably shouldn’t have tried to invade the country on the cheap with the laughably botched Bay of Pigs operation if they didn’t want Castro to go looking for protection. Duh.
Wow, I never saw such an ardent practitioner of whataboutism deny his own practice of the rhetorical method. Every time you jabber that "the South fought only to protect slavery," you're trying to take away from any argument that detracts from your Cartoon History. That's why you can't even admit that Southerners might have been pissed off by tariffs, because that argument weakens your monomaniacal insistence on One Motive, and One Motive Alone. You have no arguments whatever EXCEPT for whataboutism.

Cuba was no less a sovereign state under Batista than it was under Castro; sovereignty is not determined by whether You Tigerace like the political system. And I maintain that Castro's housing of missiles was stupid beyond anything Batista ever did, because then the 17,000 victims attributed to him (hm, not really all that much less than Batista's reported 20,000) would have "gone nuclear" and probably neither of us would be here talking about your Commie buddy.
 
Facts need no "moral justification".

I was just correcting a few inaccurate statements.
Suit yourself; I've given you my reasons for saying that when a state leaves the Union the Union no longer controls any of that state's property. In the real world that is the practice more often than not. Ukraine didn't return any of the nukes that Russia left behind when the Soviet system collapsed; they only gave them up thanks to Western interference.
 
Haha, you just really love that stupid pig story, though clearly the pig was just an excuse for hostilities, the same way Sumter was Your Slaver Hero's excuse for violating the intent of the Tenth Amendment.

Ho hum, everyone knows the excuse Hitler used to attack Poland, but it has nothing to do with whether or not Germany had the actual right to invade. You've made another of your false comparisons, because there was no Constitutional provision linking Germany to Poland. But there was a provision in the American Constitution saying that Your Slaver Hero didn't have the right to overrule secession, and in your titanic ignorance, you continue to value a few acres of alleged Federal property over the principles of the Tenth Amendment-- which is not surprising, since all of your posts show that you have no principles.

Now you must be feigning ignorance, since the whole Revolutionary War was indeed one in which England fought back when their claim to government property was violated. That like the Civil War had nothing to do with soldiers being attacked, though I'm sure English rulers too manipulated the populace with that emotional appeal, just as Your Slaver Hero did. But England lost the right to control the colonies because they didn't give representation, and the CSA applied the same principles when the North tries to screw them over-- though NOT by getting rid of slavery, since Your Slaver Hero was OK with its indefinite continued existence.

Ha ha again; I didn't defend the Fugitive Slave Act. I said that its existence proves how much the runaway slaves hurt the bottom line of the slave owners, so that they got that act passed. The comparison was to your Commie buddies, whose only reaction to defections was to tighten the screws on their own people more. Boy do you love the taste of canyon floor!

Hahaha, you just can’t bear to face historical facts, as usual. Unfortunately for you no amount of whining can change the fact that the UK was entirely willing to go to war over it, as usual. Lost Cause Losers being bewildered over even the most basic historical facts is as comical as ever though.

Oh look, MORE Lost Cause Loser stupidity. Hate to break it to you bud but the desire to reclaim the former Polish lands they’d held prior to World War One was a major reason German conservatives and the Junkers— those are noblemen, since I know how pathetically ignorant you are on every historical topic— supported Hitler. Those Polish lands were considered integral German territory under the Kaiserreich’s own constitution.

Only in the minds of the treasonous slavers frantic to try and protect slavery. In the real world, meanwhile, there was absolutely no clause stating that the US couldn’t protect itself from the attacks of your treasonous idols. And a slavery defender crying about “lack of principles” is pretty damn funny bud 😂

Once again, there is no equivalent between the Revolutionary War, whose first clash was the result of British troops tried to seize arms belonging to the colonial state administrations, and your slaver idols’ attack on US soldiers on US government property, no matter how much you whine.

😂 What a load of crap you just spewed, especially since the fact that the South dominated the government for decades, plunging the country into multiple campaigns of aggression to spread slavery, has already been throughly established.

You whined about your poor poor heroes’ bottom line being hurt, so much so that your frantically tried to defend the Fugitive Slave Act, which, gee, you don’t have an issue with despite it “violating the principles of the 10th amendment” FAR more than anything the North ever did. Which is telling 😂 Boy, your tears over slavery being crushed are pathetic!
 
Wow, I never saw such an ardent practitioner of whataboutism deny his own practice of the rhetorical method. Every time you jabber that "the South fought only to protect slavery," you're trying to take away from any argument that detracts from your Cartoon History. That's why you can't even admit that Southerners might have been pissed off by tariffs, because that argument weakens your monomaniacal insistence on One Motive, and One Motive Alone. You have no arguments whatever EXCEPT for whataboutism.

Cuba was no less a sovereign state under Batista than it was under Castro; sovereignty is not determined by whether You Tigerace like the political system. And I maintain that Castro's housing of missiles was stupid beyond anything Batista ever did, because then the 17,000 victims attributed to him (hm, not really all that much less than Batista's reported 20,000) would have "gone nuclear" and probably neither of us would be here talking about your Commie buddy.

Wow, even more slaver apologism. Hate to break it to you bud but screeching “but tariffs” is a pathetic, desperate attempt to avoid facing the fact that your heroes were desperate to start a war to keep slavery intact. You have no arguments except pathetic whining about the North crushing the “Peculiar Institution” that people like you hold so dear.....as usual.

Uh....yes, it was, given that American companies controlled basically every industry or business of any significant on the island and the Cuban people were ruthlessly exploited so that they could make a quick buck. Gee, sounds like America shouldn’t have engaged in blatant acts of aggression against the Cubans if they didn’t want Castro running to the Soviets for protection.
 
Hahaha, you just can’t bear to face historical facts, as usual. Unfortunately for you no amount of whining can change the fact that the UK was entirely willing to go to war over it, as usual. Lost Cause Losers being bewildered over even the most basic historical facts is as comical as ever though.

Oh look, MORE Lost Cause Loser stupidity. Hate to break it to you bud but the desire to reclaim the former Polish lands they’d held prior to World War One was a major reason German conservatives and the Junkers— those are noblemen, since I know how pathetically ignorant you are on every historical topic— supported Hitler. Those Polish lands were considered integral German territory under the Kaiserreich’s own constitution.

Only in the minds of the treasonous slavers frantic to try and protect slavery. In the real world, meanwhile, there was absolutely no clause stating that the US couldn’t protect itself from the attacks of your treasonous idols. And a slavery defender crying about “lack of principles” is pretty damn funny bud 😂

Once again, there is no equivalent between the Revolutionary War, whose first clash was the result of British troops tried to seize arms belonging to the colonial state administrations, and your slaver idols’ attack on US soldiers on US government property, no matter how much you whine.

😂 What a load of crap you just spewed, especially since the fact that the South dominated the government for decades, plunging the country into multiple campaigns of aggression to spread slavery, has already been throughly established.

You whined about your poor poor heroes’ bottom line being hurt, so much so that your frantically tried to defend the Fugitive Slave Act, which, gee, you don’t have an issue with despite it “violating the principles of the 10th amendment” FAR more than anything the North ever did. Which is telling 😂 Boy, your tears over slavery being crushed are pathetic!

By "it" I guess you mean the pig? Show me a modern historian who really thinks England would have gone to war for a pig, and I'll show you a historian who really thinks Your Slaver Hero cared anything about Sumter except as a device to enflame the North against the South.

There was no Constitutional agreement between the Poles of Warsaw and the German Empire as there was between the states that signed the Declaration of Independence and the federal government to whom they allotted only very specific powers-- powers which the criminal demagogue Your Slaver Hero pirated to serve his insane ego. Show me where the Poles got a say in how they were governed by Germany, or your comparison collapses like you going off the cliff once again.

Similarly, no historian thinks the Brits were out to protect a few lousy arms depots; they wanted to keep the States in economic thrall, just as Your Slaver Hero wanted to do with the South. BTW, this is as good a place as any to point out that Your Slaver Hero was not a modern Liberal of any kind. He came from the defunct Whig Party, where he worshiped at the feet of Henry Clay, and he transferred all the traditional Whig beliefs in the supremacy of Big Business to the new Republican Party. He had been an advocate of railroads and all of their corruption before becoming a politician, which makes him identical with what you've called "crony capitalism" when speaking of Putin. To date you have been hiding from the truth that Your Slaver Hero was willing to keep Blacks in slavery as long as the peculiar institution stayed down South and didn't imperil Republican hegemony in the new states. Come on, I dare you. Come up with something really FUNNY to counter Your Slaver Hero's direct statement of planning to tolerate slavery in his First Inaugural!!
 
Last edited:
Wow, even more slaver apologism. Hate to break it to you bud but screeching “but tariffs” is a pathetic, desperate attempt to avoid facing the fact that your heroes were desperate to start a war to keep slavery intact. You have no arguments except pathetic whining about the North crushing the “Peculiar Institution” that people like you hold so dear.....as usual.

Uh....yes, it was, given that American companies controlled basically every industry or business of any significant on the island and the Cuban people were ruthlessly exploited so that they could make a quick buck. Gee, sounds like America shouldn’t have engaged in blatant acts of aggression against the Cubans if they didn’t want Castro running to the Soviets for protection.

Again, more examples of your whataboutism: you bring up the irrelevant subject of Cuba for reasons known only to you, and when I say that Castro was bad, you say, "what about Batista" in order to supposedly justify Castro. But no, only a truly demented ruler would imperil all of his people and the Western hemisphere by inviting the Soviets to invade that hemisphere with their nuclear arms. What a stupid ass you've chosen to defend.

Annnnddd once again you practice whataboutism, claiming that tariffs are just a way of not talking about slavery. This is a complete lie, since I've repeatedly said that the South kept slaves for the sake of their prosperity, the same way they didn't want to be taxed to death for Northern projects, like a transcontinental railroad paid for by Southern tariffs but not actually running anywhere in the South. And down you go to the canyon floor, clutching your Cartoon History like Linus's security blanket.
 
Again, more examples of your whataboutism: you bring up the irrelevant subject of Cuba for reasons known only to you, and when I say that Castro was bad, you say, "what about Batista" in order to supposedly justify Castro. But no, only a truly demented ruler would imperil all of his people and the Western hemisphere by inviting the Soviets to invade that hemisphere with their nuclear arms. What a stupid ass you've chosen to defend.

Annnnddd once again you practice whataboutism, claiming that tariffs are just a way of not talking about slavery. This is a complete lie, since I've repeatedly said that the South kept slaves for the sake of their prosperity, the same way they didn't want to be taxed to death for Northern projects, like a transcontinental railroad paid for by Southern tariffs but not actually running anywhere in the South. And down you go to the canyon floor, clutching your Cartoon History like Linus's security blanket.

More cowardly and pathetic sobbing because I pointed out that the GOP’s standard tactic of pissing itself howling hysterically about “communists” isn’t a winning argument, no matter how much you wished it was. But then again, expecting Lost Cause Losers like you to have any sort of intelligence or comprehension of facts is expecting a LOT, I know 😂

Hate to break it to you bud but understanding WHY the Cuban people overthrowing America’s best bud in Havana is entirely relaxant. Otherwise, you just fail about impotently and whine about Castro......which gee, HAS been US policy for the last fifty plus years or so 🙄

It was about as much an “invasion” as the US “invaded” Turkey by stationing its own nuclear weapons there bud. What pathetic hypocrisy every one of your arguments reeks of. The Cubans wanted protection after the US tried to invade them secret squirrel style and they knew full well Soviet nukes would keep the Americans out of their country......and they had every right to want that.

You keep sobbing about “southern prosperity”.....and I hate to break it to you bud but your tantrum over their “prosperity” being harmed by people escaping from your beloved “peculiar institution” just goes to show how utterly pathetic you Lost Cause Losers truly are. Southerners tearfully weeping that they didn’t want a transcontinental railroad after getting northerners killed in a blatant war of aggression against Mexico is just too funny.
 
By "it" I guess you mean the pig? Show me a modern historian who really thinks England would have gone to war for a pig, and I'll show you a historian who really thinks Your Slaver Hero cared anything about Sumter except as a device to enflame the North against the South.

There was no Constitutional agreement between the Poles of Warsaw and the German Empire as there was between the states that signed the Declaration of Independence and the federal government to whom they allotted only very specific powers-- powers which the criminal demagogue Your Slaver Hero pirated to serve his insane ego. Show me where the Poles got a say in how they were governed by Germany, or your comparison collapses like you going off the cliff once again.

Similarly, no historian thinks the Brits were out to protect a few lousy arms depots; they wanted to keep the States in economic thrall, just as Your Slaver Hero wanted to do with the South. BTW, this is as good a place as any to point out that Your Slaver Hero was not a modern Liberal of any kind. He came from the defunct Whig Party, where he worshiped at the feet of Henry Clay, and he transferred all the traditional Whig beliefs in the supremacy of Big Business to the new Republican Party. He had been an advocate of railroads and all of their corruption before becoming a politician, which makes him identical with what you've called "crony capitalism" when speaking of Putin. To date you have been hiding from the truth that Your Slaver Hero was willing to keep Blacks in slavery as long as the peculiar institution stayed down South and didn't imperil Republican hegemony in the new states. Come on, I dare you. Come up with something really FUNNY to counter Your Slaver Hero's direct statement of planning to tolerate slavery in his First Inaugural!!

Gee bud, the fact that over two THOUSAND British soldiers were deployed to the region shows that they were more than willing to fight over the issue, no matter how much that fact triggers you. But, as usual, slaver fanboys like you tearfully tried to justify attacks on US soldiers is nothing new. Show me a historian that agrees with your moronic claim that punishing your treasonous heroes would be “white genocide” and that’ll show everyone just what kind of ignorant scum you idolize 😂

Similarly, slaver fanboys like you frantically trying to pretend that your idols’ war to save slavery was akin to the Revolutionary War is downright laughable, but I get that historical ignorance is your thing ;) Unfortunately for you, no amount of tearful squealing can change the fact that the two situations were entirely different and there were no equivalences between your treasonous idols’ attack on US soldiers on US government property and the Revolutionary War.

A slaver fanboy tearfully sobbing about “the corruption of railroads” while trying to defend slavery is just too hysterically funny though bud, keep it up ;)

As I’ve repeatedly stated, I certainly agree that Lincoln was FAR too lenient on your slaver heroes and should have hung about 99 percent of them.....but that makes you wet your pants and shriek about imaginary “genocide” 😂
 
More cowardly and pathetic sobbing because I pointed out that the GOP’s standard tactic of pissing itself howling hysterically about “communists” isn’t a winning argument, no matter how much you wished it was. But then again, expecting Lost Cause Losers like you to have any sort of intelligence or comprehension of facts is expecting a LOT, I know 😂

Hate to break it to you bud but understanding WHY the Cuban people overthrowing America’s best bud in Havana is entirely relaxant. Otherwise, you just fail about impotently and whine about Castro......which gee, HAS been US policy for the last fifty plus years or so 🙄

It was about as much an “invasion” as the US “invaded” Turkey by stationing its own nuclear weapons there bud. What pathetic hypocrisy every one of your arguments reeks of. The Cubans wanted protection after the US tried to invade them secret squirrel style and they knew full well Soviet nukes would keep the Americans out of their country......and they had every right to want that.

You keep sobbing about “southern prosperity”.....and I hate to break it to you bud but your tantrum over their “prosperity” being harmed by people escaping from your beloved “peculiar institution” just goes to show how utterly pathetic you Lost Cause Losers truly are. Southerners tearfully weeping that they didn’t want a transcontinental railroad after getting northerners killed in a blatant war of aggression against Mexico is just too funny.

Well, your Cuban screed might be a “relaxant” to you but I’m afraid your medical problems are not “relevant” to this thread. You might experiment with fiber in private and not embarrass yourself by continually portraying merciless dictators as victims.

The transcontinental railroad was begin slightly before the Civil War but obviously it took months if not years for the railroad companies to acquire all the rights and access. Thus Southerners had ample evidence that Northern crony capitalists, in league with Your Slaver Hero, were taking tariff bounties for their own enrichment and giving the South nothing back. Just another sterling example of taxation without representation.

And yes, Virginia, for all your flailing, Castro was still a stupid dipstick.
 
Back
Top Bottom