Democrats / Massachusetts really attacking Constitutional Rights

[Rich2018]

1. You got it.
Hypocrisy also comes from lamenting tge evils of American slavery while ignoring that the British established that slavery by enslaving and profiting off millions of people.

That word again

You might lament the passing of slavery - any righteous or civilized person absolutely would not
They, like I, celebrate the end of slavery. And it's to the eternal damnation of America's founders that they produced the world's only pro-slavery constitution, ever

Especially hypocrites like slave owners Thomas Jefferson and Patrick "Give me liberty or give me death" Henry

Britain did more to end slavery in the world than most
English/British law never recognized slavery, let alone supported it like the US law and Constitution did.

2. Um no..we want to live up to those ideals in the constitution.

Newsflash: You already did.

You want to disparage the ideals of freedom.

No, the founders of the USA did.

I am talking about britains enslaving millions and raping and pillaging millions of others in its quest for an empire.
An empire whose atrocities include establishing slavery in the America's.

There you go again, trying to defend the indefensible by pretending others were worse.

 

[jaeger19]

That word again

You might lament the passing of slavery - any righteous or civilized person absolutely would not
They, like I, celebrate the end of slavery. And it's to the eternal damnation of America's founders that they produced the world's only pro-slavery constitution, ever

Especially hypocrites like slave owners Thomas Jefferson and Patrick "Give me liberty or give me death" Henry

Britain did more to end slavery in the world than most
English/British law never recognized slavery, let alone supported it like the US law and Constitution did.



Newsflash: You already did.



No, the founders of the USA did.



There you go again, trying to defend the indefensible by pretending others were worse.

1. Britain did more to foster slavery around the world than most countries... heck..slaves were branded with the simple DY for Duke of York.
The British slave trade was sanctioned by the royal family and parliament..
It was tge British that started slavery in the American colonies.
And that's not to mention the pillaging of natural resources etc from all its other subjugated populations in its empire.

You just can't ignore history rich.

I acknowledge my countries history with slavery
But you defend your countries MUCH WORSE history by complaining about America's history.

 

[Rich2018]

1. Britain did more to foster slavery around the world than most countries... heck..slaves were branded with the simple DY for Duke of York.

Nope Britain did nothing to "foster" slavery in Britain or anywhere else

You seem to be confused between what British people did and the actions of the British government

The US founding document - the Constitution, not only condoned by supported slavery
And no British statesman uttered stuff about freedom, while owning slaves

That was done by US politicians like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick "Give me liberty or give me death" Henry
And not forgetting the slave owning first ever president of the USA.

The British slave trade was sanctioned by the royal family and parliament

No British law ever supported slavery
The highest law in the USA - its constitution - did.

It was tge British that started slavery in the American colonies.

Nope, it was colonists from Britain - learn the difference
And guess what ? Those same freedom loving colonists screamed "liberty" from their mouths, while their hands kept men in enforced sevitute (slavery).

And that's not to mention the pillaging of natural resources etc from all its other subjugated populations in its empire.

That US companies STILL do ?
Union Carbide ???

You just can't ignore history rich.

Looks like you're trying too though
Starting with the denial that men like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry, were nothing but hypocrites

Land of the Free, according to Francis Key, what a joke !

I acknowledge my countries history with slavery

And you damn the hypocrisy of men like Jefferson, Henry and your first president ?

But you defend your countries MUCH WORSE history by complaining about America's history.

"Much worse" ???
Hardly, Britain never supported slavery, the USA did
No British Prime Minister ever owned any slaves....how many US presidents did ?

 

[jaeger19]

Nope Britain did nothing to "foster" slavery in Britain or anywhere else

You seem to be confused between what British people did and the actions of the British government

The US founding document - the Constitution, not only condoned by supported slavery
And no British statesman uttered stuff about freedom, while owning slaves

That was done by US politicians like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick "Give me liberty or give me death" Henry
And not forgetting the slave owning first ever president of the USA.



No British law ever supported slavery
The highest law in the USA - its constitution - did.



Nope, it was colonists from Britain - learn the difference
And guess what ? Those same freedom loving colonists screamed "liberty" from their mouths, while their hands kept men in enforced sevitute (slavery).



That US companies STILL do ?
Union Carbide ???



Looks like you're trying too though
Starting with the denial that men like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry, were nothing but hypocrites

Land of the Free, according to Francis Key, what a joke !



And you damn the hypocrisy of men like Jefferson, Henry and your first president ?



"Much worse" ???
Hardly, Britain never supported slavery, the USA did
No British Prime Minister ever owned any slaves....how many US presidents did ?

Slavery in america was the direct result of the British establishing slavery in America and the massive British slave trade.

A slave trade protected by British parliament and thee Monarchy.
"Over many years, Parliament, with royal support and backing, had facilitated the development of a large and growing enslaved African population in the British colonies. The slave trade generated immense wealth for plantation owners, financial backers and traders.

Parliament passed more than one hundred acts supporting and protecting the slave trade. Many politicians and others had business interests in the plantations, slave trading companies, and slave-produced commodities such as cotton and sugar. These exotic commodities and the riches they created proved irresistible, and the slave trade continued to make Britain wealthier. "

https://heritagecollections.parliament.uk/stories/the-transatlantic-slave-trade/#:~:text=Parliament%20and%20the%20slave%20trade&text=Over%20many%20years%2C%20Parliament%2C%20with,owners%2C%20financial%20backers%20and%20traders.

And it was in Britain as well.
Nestled among ads for new books, medicines, and clothes was a startling request for help. “Run away from his master, captain Bailey Kent, the 23rd of January last, a black negro Guinea boy, about 16 years of age, called by the name of Prattle, a short squat sturdy lad,” the newspaper notice reads. “Whoever secures and brings him to captain Bailey Kent, at his house at the Hermitage in Wapping, shall have two guineas reward, and reasonable charges.” The advertisement, placed in the London Gazette in 1705, warns readers against helping the boy. Those tempted do so “at their peril.”

In the UK, the transatlantic slave trade is often taught as something that took place primarily in the Caribbean, the Americas, and South Asia, says Simon Newman, a professor of American history at the University of Glasgow. But the advertisement points to an uncomfortable truth: there were plenty of enslaved people in mainland Britain, too..

In fact, Newman and his team of researchers found over 800 runaway slave ads published in English and Scottish newspapers between 1700 and 1780. They also found almost 80 ads selling slaves. The material highlights the normality of the practice; people felt comfortable enough to advertise runaway slaves or publicly offer a slave for sale in papers read by their by friends and neighbors."

Researchers discovered hundreds of ads for runaway slaves in 18th-century Britain

Nestled among ads for new books, medicines, and clothes was a startling request for help. “Run away from his master, captain Bailey Kent, the 23rd of January last, a black negro Guinea boy, about 16 years of age, called by the name of Prattle, a short squat sturdy lad,” the newspaper notice...

qz.com

Rich..I suggest you learn your own history before commenting on ours.

 

[RF667799]

Slavery in america was the direct result of the British establishing slavery in America and the massive British slave trade.

A slave trade protected by British parliament and thee Monarchy.
"Over many years, Parliament, with royal support and backing, had facilitated the development of a large and growing enslaved African population in the British colonies. The slave trade generated immense wealth for plantation owners, financial backers and traders.

Parliament passed more than one hundred acts supporting and protecting the slave trade. Many politicians and others had business interests in the plantations, slave trading companies, and slave-produced commodities such as cotton and sugar. These exotic commodities and the riches they created proved irresistible, and the slave trade continued to make Britain wealthier. "

https://heritagecollections.parliament.uk/stories/the-transatlantic-slave-trade/#:~:text=Parliament%20and%20the%20slave%20trade&text=Over%20many%20years%2C%20Parliament%2C%20with,owners%2C%20financial%20backers%20and%20traders.

And it was in Britain as well.
Nestled among ads for new books, medicines, and clothes was a startling request for help. “Run away from his master, captain Bailey Kent, the 23rd of January last, a black negro Guinea boy, about 16 years of age, called by the name of Prattle, a short squat sturdy lad,” the newspaper notice reads. “Whoever secures and brings him to captain Bailey Kent, at his house at the Hermitage in Wapping, shall have two guineas reward, and reasonable charges.” The advertisement, placed in the London Gazette in 1705, warns readers against helping the boy. Those tempted do so “at their peril.”

In the UK, the transatlantic slave trade is often taught as something that took place primarily in the Caribbean, the Americas, and South Asia, says Simon Newman, a professor of American history at the University of Glasgow. But the advertisement points to an uncomfortable truth: there were plenty of enslaved people in mainland Britain, too..

In fact, Newman and his team of researchers found over 800 runaway slave ads published in English and Scottish newspapers between 1700 and 1780. They also found almost 80 ads selling slaves. The material highlights the normality of the practice; people felt comfortable enough to advertise runaway slaves or publicly offer a slave for sale in papers read by their by friends and neighbors."

Researchers discovered hundreds of ads for runaway slaves in 18th-century Britain

Nestled among ads for new books, medicines, and clothes was a startling request for help. “Run away from his master, captain Bailey Kent, the 23rd of January last, a black negro Guinea boy, about 16 years of age, called by the name of Prattle, a short squat sturdy lad,” the newspaper notice...

qz.com

Rich..I suggest you learn your own history before commenting on ours.

Moving to America entirely of his own choice, is evidence that he thinks America is better than his home country.

I agree with him.

 

[jaeger19]

Moving to America entirely of his own choice, is evidence that he thinks America is better than his home country.

I agree with him.

To be fair..he may have been "asked" to leave.

 

[Rich2018]

Slavery in america was the direct result of the British establishing slavery in America and the massive British slave trade.

Nope
Slavery in the USA was the direct results of US citizens.

Parliament passed more than one hundred acts supporting and protecting the slave trade.

Nope, slavery was never legal in England/Britain
Unlike the USA, where slavery was not only legal it was both suported and protected by the US Constitution

No English/British law ever supported/protected slavery. Ever.

In the UK, the transatlantic slave trade is often taught as something that took place primarily in the Caribbean, the Americas, and South Asia, says Simon Newman, a professor of American history at the University of Glasgow. But the advertisement points to an uncomfortable truth: there were plenty of enslaved people in mainland Britain, too

It certainly wasn't practiced in the UK
Unlike the USA, where slavery was indeed practiced and protected by the world's ONLY pro-slavery constition, ever.

In fact, Newman and his team of researchers found over 800 runaway slave ads published in English and Scottish newspapers between 1700 and 1780. They also found almost 80 ads selling slaves. The material highlights the normality of the practice; people felt comfortable enough to advertise runaway slaves or publicly offer a slave for sale in papers read by their by friends and neighbors.

In the USA, people, by constitutional law, were required to return fugitive slaved to their owners
English/British law did not, and never did, recognize slavery
That was just an American thing.

I suggest you learn your own history before commenting on ours.

I suggest you quit blaming other for your own country's sins and the sins of its politicians like Thomas Jefferson and your first president.

 

[RF667799]

Nope
Slavery in the USA was the direct results of US citizens.



Nope, slavery was never legal in England/Britain
Unlike the USA, where slavery was not only legal it was both suported and protected by the US Constitution

No English/British law ever supported/protected slavery. Ever.



It certainly wasn't practiced in the UK
Unlike the USA, where slavery was indeed practiced and protected by the world's ONLY pro-slavery constition, ever.



In the USA, people, by constitutional law, were required to return fugitive slaved to their owners
English/British law did not, and never did, recognize slavery
That was just an American thing.



I suggest you quit blaming other for your own country's sins and the sins of its politicians like Thomas Jefferson and your first president.

Didn't the British subjects in America practice chattel slavery? I think they did.

You seem to think history didn’t begin until the advent of the United States.

 

[Maidenrules29]

ok why not do all that if there are knives in the house? Knives are used twice as often in murder than semi-auto rifle.

But guns are SCARY!!!!

 

[jaeger19]

Nope
Slavery in the USA was the direct results of US citizens.



Nope, slavery was never legal in England/Britain
Unlike the USA, where slavery was not only legal it was both suported and protected by the US Constitution

No English/British law ever supported/protected slavery. Ever.



It certainly wasn't practiced in the UK
Unlike the USA, where slavery was indeed practiced and protected by the world's ONLY pro-slavery constition, ever.



In the USA, people, by constitutional law, were required to return fugitive slaved to their owners
English/British law did not, and never did, recognize slavery
That was just an American thing.



I suggest you quit blaming other for your own country's sins and the sins of its politicians like Thomas Jefferson and your first president.

That's some revisionist history you got there.

"During the early 18th century, Britain passed Spain and Portugal to become the world's leading slave-trading nation. The North American royal colonies not only imported Africans but also captured Native Americans, impressing them into slavery. Many Native Americans were shipped as slaves to the Caribbean."

"Slavery was the most important institution in colonial British America. Every area of colonial British America before the American Revolution allowed slavery, and in southern and island plantations it was essential to all areas of life. Although all areas of colonial British America allowed African chattel slavery from the mid-17th century onward and although slavery among Native Americans was well established before European arrival and continued and expanded after Europeans arrived, slavery was a dominant institution in only a few colonies. In these colonies––ranging from Maryland in the north to Demerara in South America––slavery was not only the principal source of wealth, but also it shaped every aspect of slavery. Britain relied on slavery and slave-produced products for whatever wealth it got from British America and was heavily involved in slavery as the leading trafficker of slaves across the Atlantic from the mid-17th century until the abolition of the slave trade in 1807. British ships carried millions of slaves to the Americas, where they changed the demographic makeup of European-controlled settlements markedly."

https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780199730414/obo-9780199730414-0127.xml

Perhaps rich you could explain why this history has it all wrong.

 

[Rich2018]

"During the early 18th century, Britain passed Spain and Portugal to become the world's leading slave-trading nation. The North American royal colonies not only imported Africans but also captured Native Americans, impressing them into slavery. Many Native Americans were shipped as slaves to the Caribbean."

Yeah well the USA had not gained its independence then, so you can hardly blame them for not making the top spot
Not to worry though, after independence, US shipping companies made up for lost time, aided of course by having the world's only pro-slavery constitution

Yet Francis Scott Key would still go on to pen that little ditty about "land of the free"

Perhaps rich you could explain why this history has it all wrong.

"Give me liberty or give me death" - Renowned slave owner Patrick Henry
"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" - Declaration of Independence - not so god given and unalienable if you were a slave huh

You mean how US history, taught in schools, has it all wrong ?


Face it jaeger, your country was built on a hypocritical lie

 

[jaeger19]

Yeah well the USA had not gained its independence then, so you can hardly blame them for not making the top spot
Not to worry though, after independence, US shipping companies made up for lost time, aided of course by having the world's only pro-slavery constitution

Yet Francis Scott Key would still go on to pen that little ditty about "land of the free"



"Give me liberty or give me death" - Renowned slave owner Patrick Henry
"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" - Declaration of Independence - not so god given and unalienable if you were a slave huh

You mean how US history, taught in schools, has it all wrong ?


Face it jaeger, your country was built on a hypocritical lie

Well. You don't seem to want to accept your slavery past as a brit. American slave trade didn't make up for the two hundred years of tge middle passage..nor the horrors in india..Africa Asia and the rest of the British empire.

2. Hmmm.
What do you consider a lie?
That all men are created equal?
Is that a lie?..
Do you feel that innately some people by race or creed are superior to others?

 

[Rich2018]

Well. You don't seem to want to accept your slavery past as a brit. American slave trade didn't make up for the two hundred years of tge middle passage..nor the horrors in india..Africa Asia and the rest of the British empire.

English/British law not condoned, accepted or supported the concept of slavery
Unlike the USA, where slavery was actively supported by the world only pro-slavery constitution ever ?

What do you consider a lie?

Er, your claims to be fluent in French and Spanish
Your claim to be a former policemen, nightclub bouncer and MMA fighter
You absurd claim to be a practicing doctor
Your claim to be a former gun shop owner
Your claim to own a livestock farm

Lies like those

That all men are created equal?

Except if they were slaves - according to US law, backed by the world's only pro-slavery constitution ever.

Is that a lie?

Yep

And propagated by renowned slave owners like:
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
Patrick "Give me liberty or give me death" Henry.

Do you feel that innately some people by race or creed are superior to others?

No, but the framers of the US Constitution certainly did.

 

[jaeger19]

English/British law not condoned, accepted or supported the concept of slavery
Unlike the USA, where slavery was actively supported by the world only pro-slavery constitution ever ?



Er, your claims to be fluent in French and Spanish
Your claim to be a former policemen, nightclub bouncer and MMA fighter
You absurd claim to be a practicing doctor
Your claim to be a former gun shop owner
Your claim to own a livestock farm

Lies like those



Except if they were slaves - according to US law, backed by the world's only pro-slavery constitution ever.



Yep

And propagated by renowned slave owners like:
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
Patrick "Give me liberty or give me death" Henry.



No, but the framers of the US Constitution certainly did.

As pointed out..and citations proved..your parliament and Monarchy very much supported slavery And in fact wrote over 100 acts that supported slavery.

"Parliament passed more than one hundred acts supporting and protecting the slave trade."

https://heritagecollections.parliament.uk/stories/the-transatlantic-slave-trade/#:~:text=Parliament%20and%20the%20slave%20trade&text=Over%20many%20years%2C%20Parliament%2C%20with,owners%2C%20financial%20backers%20and%20traders.

Care to explain why the above source is wrong. Because it seems to refute your idea that British law didn't condone or support slavery.
Or do I have it wrong and that parliamentary acts aren't British law?
Lol.

What say you.?

2. Based on what exactly there Skippy.?
( by the way I never claimed to "be fluent").
I can hold my own for basics. Not to mention Spanish speaking patients though I need help explaining complex medical issues).
Tell us in what way you are in a position to question my veracity?

3. Sure. But the ideals of the constitution. The ideals of American liberty ARE NOT LIES.
In the time period of America's founding fathers...the ideas of liberty..the idea that all men are created equal..that birth doesn't dictate your worthiness.
That idea was quite novel for the time.
Oh yes..thd founders may have been imperfect with their application..meaning only " white men".
But their ideas of freedom were still far and away more advanced than anything Britain was doing or thinking!.
Cripes today..even today you have 1/2 your parliament is called " house of lords" and is selected not by the people but by superiors.
At one time..these positions were all hereditary!!..( until 1999). And even today 92 of the positions ARE hereditary.

The fact is its fine to criticise tge American founding fathers for not applying their ideals on freedom to women..to non whites.
Most certainly.
However..their ideals were far and away more advanced than Britain's!!!. Even today,!!

 

[Rich2018]

As pointed out..and citations proved..your parliament and Monarchy very much supported slavery

Slavery was never legal in England/Britain, unlike the USA where is was not on legal, but protected by the world's only pro-slavery constitution, ever
And reinforced by hypocritical slave owning presidents like Washington and Jefferson

"Give me liberty or give me death" - slave owner Patrick Henry declared
"The Land of the Free" Francis Key wrote. Not a popular song on southern plantations I would wager

Face it jaeger, the USA was built of a hypocritical lie.

2. Based on what exactly there Skippy ?

The bush kangaroo ?

( by the way I never claimed to "be fluent").
I can hold my own for basics. Not to mention Spanish speaking patients though I need help explaining complex medical issues).
Tell us in what way you are in a position to question my veracity?

Your history of tall tales
So you're able to say "good morning" in French and Spanish. Bit of a goal post move there huh from "speaking" French & Spanish to just the "basics" - whatever that is meant to mean. Just another lie that you've been caught out on.

And so, if it wasn't for British soldiers, you WOULD be fluent in either French or Spanish, as it'd be your first language.

3. Sure. But the ideals of the constitution. The ideals of American liberty ARE NOT LIES.

The lies are that the "ideals" of liberty and freedom weren't true - for the majority of people in the infant USA

Your country was based on a lie.

In the time period of America's founding fathers...the ideas of liberty..the idea that all men are created equal..that birth doesn't dictate your worthiness.
That idea was quite novel for the time.

But it seems that some were more equal than others.

Oh yes..thd founders may have been imperfect with their application..meaning only " white men".

And the Nazis might have been a little harsh on the Jews.

But their ideas of freedom were still far and away more advanced than anything Britain was doing or thinking!.

Shows an ignorance of English/British politics
I guess you've never heard of the English Revolution
Never heard of the "Bill of Rights" (the actual bill that is)
The English Parliament goes back to the 13th century
Magna Carta was signed in 1215 - parts of which are still active parts of the UK constitution - particularly the establishment of "Habeas Corpus" (Produce a Body)
I suppose you think the Civil War was an American thing too. Well I have news for you, the English civil war predates the US civil war by 200 years and ended the divine right of kings.

It's not all your fault jaeger, American schools spoon feed all kinds of crap - like George Washington cutting down a cherry tree and Benjamin Franklin discovering electricity.

Cripes today..even today you have 1/2 your parliament is called " house of lords" and is selected not by the people but by superiors.

Again you fall back on defending the USA lapses in democracy by comparison by others
It wasn't long ago that US senators were not voted in but selected by their state

And don't get me started on the wretched Electoral College. Only in America can a president claim legitimacy when more people voted for someone else than for him.

The fact is its fine to criticise tge American founding fathers for not applying their ideals on freedom to women..to non whites.

To slaves, Indians, women, and only 60-70% of white men could vote.

However..their ideals were far and away more advanced than Britain's!!!. Even today,!!

And therein lies the rub
Their "ideals" might have been high
But their deeds did not match what they said.

 

[jaeger19]

Slavery was never legal in England/Britain, unlike the USA where is was not on legal, but protected by the world's only pro-slavery constitution, ever
And reinforced by hypocritical slave owning presidents like Washington and Jefferson

"Give me liberty or give me death" - slave owner Patrick Henry declared
"The Land of the Free" Francis Key wrote. Not a popular song on southern plantations I would wager

Face it jaeger, the USA was built of a hypocritical lie.



The bush kangaroo ?




Your history of tall tales
So you're able to say "good morning" in French and Spanish. Bit of a goal post move there huh from "speaking" French & Spanish to just the "basics" - whatever that is meant to mean. Just another lie that you've been caught out on.

And so, if it wasn't for British soldiers, you WOULD be fluent in either French or Spanish, as it'd be your first language.



The lies are that the "ideals" of liberty and freedom weren't true - for the majority of people in the infant USA

Your country was based on a lie.



But it seems that some were more equal than others.



And the Nazis might have been a little harsh on the Jews.



Shows an ignorance of English/British politics
I guess you've never heard of the English Revolution
Never heard of the "Bill of Rights" (the actual bill that is)
The English Parliament goes back to the 13th century
Magna Carta was signed in 1215 - parts of which are still active parts of the UK constitution - particularly the establishment of "Habeas Corpus" (Produce a Body)
I suppose you think the Civil War was an American thing too. Well I have news for you, the English civil war predates the US civil war by 200 years and ended the divine right of kings.

It's not all your fault jaeger, American schools spoon feed all kinds of crap - like George Washington cutting down a cherry tree and Benjamin Franklin discovering electricity.



Again you fall back on defending the USA lapses in democracy by comparison by others
It wasn't long ago that US senators were not voted in but selected by their state

And don't get me started on the wretched Electoral College. Only in America can a president claim legitimacy when more people voted for someone else than for him.



To slaves, Indians, women, and only 60-70% of white men could vote.



And therein lies the rub
Their "ideals" might have been high
But their deeds did not match what they said.

1. Yet as pointed out..slaves were openly sold in britain and openly owned in Britain ( cripes they advertised in the newspaper).
Not to mention that parliament wrote over a hundred acts supporting and expanding the slave trade.

It's seems you don't know your own history.

2. No. It was built on ideals of freedom that was very rare in the world. Certainly tge British didn't hold those ideals of freedom.
Frankly the British don't seem to hold them today.

But yes..the founding fathers did not all live up to those ideals.

3. Well.. more than just good morning.
I can get by telling my employees what I want them to do on the ranch..here what happened yesterday..etc
Same with patients. But explaining risks of cva..myocardial infarction..I have the translation department.

But..what's your point?
I don't care I'd I was speaking French or Spanish.

It's not like France or Spain was about to conquer the us in 1941

Maybe you would have been happier speaking German in Britain and running a " well administered concentration camp".

4. The liberty held for the majority of white males. Certainly more liberty than the white males of Britain and all the indigenous people they subjugated.

5. Nope. No defense. I clearly recognize the us sordid past when it comes with slavery.
I just note you are being more than a vit hypocritical by acknowledging your own country's rather HORRIFIC history of slavery and abuse.

People in glass houses..lol.

6. And that is in part why America isn't a pure democracy but a democratic republic.
Which prevents the tyranny of the majority.

7. Yep. So?
8. Sure. Again so?
You brits didn't even have those ideals.
You still don't.

 

[CLAX1911]

Tim Walz saying things he doesn't agree with that he calls misinformation and somehow not free speech. It makes me wonder the party is so bent on misinforming everyone and every opportunity really cares about misinformation or is it that they don't get to control it

 

[Rich2018]

1. Yet as pointed out..slaves were openly sold in britain and openly owned in Britain ( cripes they advertised in the newspaper).

Slaves were not openly sold in England/Britain, as English/British law did not recognize slavery as a legal condition

Stop lying.

Not to mention that parliament wrote over a hundred acts supporting and expanding the slave trade.

Not in the UK. Slavery was never legal in England/Britain, unlike the USA where it WAS not only legal, but constitutionally protected.

It's seems you don't know your own history.

No, it just seems that the poorer you do at debate, the more dishonest your assertions get.

It was built on ideals of freedom that was very rare in the world

Yet those "ideals" supported slavery, in the world's only pro-slavery constriction EVER

"Freedom" - pardon me while I fall down laughing !!!

...the founding fathers did not all live up to those ideals.

Yet they were the ones who put those "ideals" into words
As I said, utter hypocrites.

....more than just good morning.
I can get by telling my employees what I want them to do on the ranch..here what happened yesterday..etc
Same with patients. But explaining risks of cva..myocardial infarction..I have the translation department.

I've told you before, I'm not interested in indulging your fantasies
You have no employees and a no doctor.

But..what's your point?

You said that without the USA, the UK would be speaking German now
But that's utter BS as the former Nazi occupied areas prove, as do the people of East Germany who still speak German as 1st language

Whereas, if it were for British soldiers, you would not be speaking English, but French or Spanish - as a 1st language
And no, your claims to speak both are as fallacious as your claim to be a doctor.

Maybe you would have been happier speaking German in Britain and running a " well administered concentration camp".

I used to speak what the British army referred to as "Colloquial German", and the Army actually sent me to the British Army language school in Beaconsfield to learn German
Fun fact: the language taught most there is actually English.

The liberty held for the majority of white males. Certainly more liberty than the white males of Britain and all the indigenous people they subjugated.

Why do you think a nation's "liberty" is measured by the proportion of just white males, who had the vote ?
How about ALL people ???

I clearly recognize the us sordid past when it comes with slavery

And the hypocrisy of slave owners like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Patrick "give me liberty or give me death" Henry

Or the fact that your country was founded on the only pro-slavery, national constitution, ever ?

I just note you are being more than a vit hypocritical by acknowledging your own country's rather HORRIFIC history of slavery and abuse.

Whilst I note your inability to stay on topic and propensity for deflection
Specifically to try and defend the USA's past by comparison to others

You do this in other areas too, like saying the USA's record on gun crime, gun related homicides is OK, as countries like Mexico are far worse.

6. And that is in part why America isn't a pure democracy but a democratic republic.
Which prevents the tyranny of the majority.

No nation democracy is "pure democracy"
It's only a variation of "representative democracy".

You brits didn't even have those ideals.
You still don't.

Not ideals of constitutionally protected slavery, that's for sure.

 

[jaeger19]

Slaves were not openly sold in England/Britain, as English/British law did not recognize slavery as a legal condition

Stop lying.



Not in the UK. Slavery was never legal in England/Britain, unlike the USA where it WAS not only legal, but constitutionally protected.



No, it just seems that the poorer you do at debate, the more dishonest your assertions get.



Yet those "ideals" supported slavery, in the world's only pro-slavery constriction EVER

"Freedom" - pardon me while I fall down laughing !!!



Yet they were the ones who put those "ideals" into words
As I said, utter hypocrites.



I've told you before, I'm not interested in indulging your fantasies
You have no employees and a no doctor.



You said that without the USA, the UK would be speaking German now
But that's utter BS as the former Nazi occupied areas prove, as do the people of East Germany who still speak German as 1st language

Whereas, if it were for British soldiers, you would not be speaking English, but French or Spanish - as a 1st language
And no, your claims to speak both are as fallacious as your claim to be a doctor.



I used to speak what the British army referred to as "Colloquial German", and the Army actually sent me to the British Army language school in Beaconsfield to learn German
Fun fact: the language taught most the



Whilst I note your inability to stay on topic and propensity for deflection
Specifically to try and defend the USA's past by comparison to others

You do this in other areas too, like saying the USA's record on gun crime, gun related homicides is OK, as countries like Mexico are far worse.



No nation democracy is "pure democracy"
It's only a variation of "representative democracy".



Not ideals of constitutionally protected slavery, that's for sure.

1. Yep. Slaves were openly sold in britain I already cited one source. Here's another.

"Perhaps the most compelling evidence of the presence of enslaved people in eighteenth-century Britain are the newspaper notices advertising men, women and children for sale. While many white Britons were bound labourers, required by contract and law to serve masters for set periods of time, these people were not owned by their masters, and they could not be bought or sold. However, in Britain's colonies local laws and customs recognised that enslaved people were legally the property of their owners, who had the right to sell their human property. The 'for sale' advertisements in British newspapers show that masters who brought enslaved people to Britain believed that their right to buy and sell enslaved people was not restricted to the colonies.".

Arguably most striking about these advertisements is their unabashed affirmations of the existence of racial slavery in Britain. Advertisements describing livestock for sale were often close or even adjacent to these notices offering enslaved people for sale, and the language within these notices was shockingly similar. More often than not slave owners did not appear to feel at all ashamed of owning enslaved people.

Runaways :: For Sale

Sorry dude. You need to learn your own history.

2. Nope. Britain was almost conquered by Germany. It would have been without the usa. And its well established that the conquered nation..if conquered long enough..takes on the language of its conquerors.
Like you British speaking english...which was brought by the Anglo Saxons who invaded and conquered large parts of Britain.

The USA was never close to being conquered by France or Spain.
Much less need british soldiers.

3. Well..okay then. At the time of the founding fathers..the USA had a much larger percentage of its citizens that could vote than Britain.

4. Yep. Many call our founders like Jefferson and Washington hypocrites for believing in freedom ..but having slaves.
Though to be fair..Washington and Jefferson later in life worked against the institution of slavery.

And of course both Jefferson and Washington inherited slaves from their parents.
I wonder what life was like for freed slaves. Kicked out of their only shelter..source of food..and sent out into a world where they had no rights and no protection..and limited means of making a living.
Must have been easy for these people..especially women.
Right rich?.

5. Rich..as I have pointed out so so many times " gun violence" is a useless statistic.
So I wouldn't care what Mexico does. Nor care to " justify America's gun violence.
So it's just you making up an argument that I haven't made.

6. Just government supported slavery.
It was your country that imported slaves into the British American colonies.

 

[Rich2018]

Slaves were openly sold in britain I already cited one source. Here's another.

Nope, just evidence of your failure to read:
From your own source: "these people were not owned by their masters"

Once again, slavery was NEVER legal in England/Britain, unlike the USA where it was not only legal but constitutionally protected.

Britain was almost conquered by Germany. It would have been without the usa.

Nope it would NOT have
Without the US entry into the ETO, then the most likely outcome is the Red Army reaches the Pyrenees and perhaps beyond
The USSR would not have been able to invade the UK, just like Germany was never able to.

History is not your strong suit is it ?
But without the British, the land that's now called the USA would be speaking French or Spanish. And Russian in Alaska.

Like you British speaking english...which was brought by the Anglo Saxons who invaded and conquered large parts of Britain.

Oh please...that like saying that Britain invaded and defeated the Americans with English/British colonists arriving in North America in the 16th century.

The USA was never close to being conquered by France or Spain.

But would've been had it not been for the British.

At the time of the founding fathers..the USA had a much larger percentage of its citizens that could vote than Britain.

Citation ?

And of course both Jefferson and Washington inherited slaves from their parents.

That a civilized man would've freed upon inheritance.

I wonder what life was like for freed slaves.

Somewhat better than a life of enforced servitude, which is why slavery is illegal in the USA today.

gun violence is a useless statistic

Nope
Unless of course you wish to defend US gun violence (and please no assertions that guns can't be violent - you know what is meant by gun violence), by comparing the USA to 3rd world countries like El Salvador, Mexico and Brazil, and not the USA's peer countries

Just government supported slavery.
It was your country that imported slaves into the British American colonies.

Nope, it was many people, many of them British, but just because certain British citizens do reprehensible things, does NOT mean that Britain does
A bit like saying that the USA promotes sweat shops in Asia, just because companies like Nike do

 

[RF667799]

Nope, just evidence of your failure to read:
From your own source: "these people were not owned by their masters"

Once again, slavery was NEVER legal in England/Britain, unlike the USA where it was not only legal but constitutionally protected.




Nope it would NOT have
Without the US entry into the ETO, then the most likely outcome is the Red Army reaches the Pyrenees and perhaps beyond
The USSR would not have been able to invade the UK, just like Germany was never able to.

History is not your strong suit is it ?
But without the British, the land that's now called the USA would be speaking French or Spanish. And Russian in Alaska.




Oh please...that like saying that Britain invaded and defeated the Americans with English/British colonists arriving in North America in the 16th century.



But would've been had it not been for the British.



Citation ?



That a civilized man would've freed upon inheritance.



Somewhat better than a life of enforced servitude, which is why slavery is illegal in the USA today.



Nope
Unless of course you wish to defend US gun violence (and please no assertions that guns can't be violent - you know what is meant by gun violence), by comparing the USA to 3rd world countries like El Salvador, Mexico and Brazil, and not the USA's peer countries



Nope, it was many people, many of them British, but just because certain British citizens do reprehensible things, does NOT mean that Britain does
A bit like saying that the USA promotes sweat shops in Asia, just because companies like Nike do

Are guns more violent in Mexico?

 

[jaeger19]

Nope, just evidence of your failure to read:
From your own source: "these people were not owned by their masters"

Once again, slavery was NEVER legal in England/Britain, unlike the USA where it was not only legal but constitutionally protected.




Nope it would NOT have
Without the US entry into the ETO, then the most likely outcome is the Red Army reaches the Pyrenees and perhaps beyond
The USSR would not have been able to invade the UK, just like Germany was never able to.

History is not your strong suit is it ?
But without the British, the land that's now called the USA would be speaking French or Spanish. And Russian in Alaska.




Oh please...that like saying that Britain invaded and defeated the Americans with English/British colonists arriving in North America in the 16th century.



But would've been had it not been for the British.



Citation ?



That a civilized man would've freed upon inheritance.



Somewhat better than a life of enforced servitude, which is why slavery is illegal in the USA today.



Nope
Unless of course you wish to defend US gun violence (and please no assertions that guns can't be violent - you know what is meant by gun violence), by comparing the USA to 3rd world countries like El Salvador, Mexico and Brazil, and not the USA's peer countries



Nope, it was many people, many of them British, but just because certain British citizens do reprehensible things, does NOT mean that Britain does
A bit like saying that the USA promotes sweat shops in Asia, just because companies like Nike do

1. Sigh....no rich wrong.
From my source.
"While many white Britons were bound labourers, required by contract and law to serve masters for set periods of time, these people were not owned by their masters, and they could not be bought or sold".
That's talking about WHITE laborers.
They could not be sold.

But..

"However, in Britain's colonies local laws and customs recognised that enslaved people were legally the property of their owners, who had the right to sell their human property. The 'for sale' advertisements in British newspapers show that masters who brought enslaved people to Britain believed that their right to buy and sell enslaved people was not restricted to the colonies.".

Arguably most striking about these advertisements is their unabashed affirmations of the existence of racial slavery in Britain. Advertisements describing livestock for sale were often close or even adjacent to these notices offering enslaved people for sale, and the language within these notices was shockingly similar. More often than not slave owners did not appear to feel at all ashamed of owning enslaved people.".

So. The British not only enslaved millions of African people.and .native Americans ..
Taking them to plantations in america.
Tge British ALSO too their slaves to BRITAIN. Where tgeopenly owned them..sold them and bought them
As my citations show.

2. Germany would have pounded the uk into submission and surrender. Tge uk would have become just another part of the German empire.

3. Rich..you don't even know your own history much less ours.
So what if I would be speaking French or spanish..if so..I would be the descendent of French or Spanish colonists.?

It's not like the USA was an established country and the British " saved" the USA from a Spanish invasion.
Like the us saved Britain in ww1 and ww2.
.

4. Free upon inheritance which means the former slave has to fend for themselves without a job..without education. Without food without shelter in a society where he literally is viewed as less than human. Awesome. Lol.

5. You think uts better to starve to death. Or be forced to be raped by men ( if a women) in order to have food..a roof and a blanket?
Rich..you don't have a clue about the realities of life for Africans in the British colonies. Free or slave

6. Rich. " gun violence" is a meaningless statistic.

7. Rich. It was YOUR PARLIAMENT tgat wrote over 100 acts supporting slavery
It was your Monarchy that benefited from slavery and owned stock in slave companies !!!.

 

[jaeger19]

Are guns more violent in Mexico?

Maybe shotguns are more portable there?

 

[Rich2018]

1. Sigh....no rich wrong.

And from YOUR source
"these people were not owned by their masters"

ie: they were NOT slaves so stop lying.

The British not only enslaved millions of African people.and .native Americans ..

Nope, people who happened to be British were involved in slavery
Just as many people of other nationalities were, including Americans

The difference is that slavery was NEVER legal in England/Britain, unlike the USA where it was not only legal but constitutionally protected.

Germany would have pounded the uk into submission and surrender. Tge uk would have become just another part of the German empire.

Wrong again, Germany never had a chance of (successfully) invading the UK, in 1940 or any other year
Indeed Germany never even tried. Operation Sealion in 1940, has long since been exposed as nothing but a bluff.

you don't even know your own history much less ours.

You have proved that you know nothing about British history, just some misunderstood internet references that I'm sure you spent hours finding
And from which you fabricate ignorant lies

Like you do about your personal history.

So what if I would be speaking French or spanish

Because you falsely claimed that without the USA, the British would be speaking another language, when the reverse is actually true
Without the British, you would be.

It's not like the USA was an established country...

North America had about 500 Native American nations, each with it's own established territory or country
Just as the Saxons had their own land/country when the Normans took it from them.

Like the us saved Britain in ww1 and ww2.

Nope, without the USA, Germany still loses the Great Patriotic War
And in WWI, US troops were just a "drop in the bucket" compared to the British and French armies.

Free upon inheritance which means the former slave has to fend for themselves without a job..without education. Without food without shelter in a society where he literally is viewed as less than human. Awesome. Lol.

So better to be a slave !!!

(just out of curiosity, why do you think some slaves ran away, when they'd be "without a job, education, food, shelter, and in a society where he literally is viewed as less than human ?)

Remember this: As per jaeger, enslaved people in the South were better off as slaves than free men.
And you say you support liberty and freedom ?

That's a quite disgusting comment jaeger, and one I would expect from the likes of the slave owners who wrote the pro-slavery US Constitution
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Patrick "give me liberty or give me death" Henry would approve.

" gun violence" is a meaningless statistic.

As a former poster said on here once, the numbers killed in mass shootings and "statistically insignificant"
What did Joe Stalin once say: "A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is just a statistic"
Sounds like you're a fan of "Uncle Joe", to go along with your defense of slavery.

7. Rich. It was YOUR PARLIAMENT tgat wrote over 100 acts supporting slavery
It was your Monarchy that benefited from slavery and owned stock in slave companies !!!.

One more time, slavery was NEVER legal in England/Britain, unlike the USA where it was not only legal but constitutionally protected.

 

[jaeger19]

And from YOUR source
"these people were not owned by their masters"

ie: they were NOT slaves so stop lying.



Nope, people who happened to be British were involved in slavery
Just as many people of other nationalities were, including Americans

The difference is that slavery was NEVER legal in England/Britain, unlike the USA where it was not only legal but constitutionally protected.



Wrong again, Germany never had a chance of (successfully) invading the UK, in 1940 or any other year
Indeed Germany never even tried. Operation Sealion in 1940, has long since been exposed as nothing but a bluff.



You have proved that you know nothing about British history, just some misunderstood internet references that I'm sure you spent hours finding
And from which you fabricate ignorant lies

Like you do about your personal history.



Because you falsely claimed that without the USA, the British would be speaking another language, when the reverse is actually true
Without the British, you would be.



North America had about 500 Native American nations, each with it's own established territory or country
Just as the Saxons had their own land/country when the Normans took it from them.



Nope, without the USA, Germany still loses the Great Patriotic War
And in WWI, US troops were just a "drop in the bucket" compared to the British and French armies.



So better to be a slave !!!

(just out of curiosity, why do you think some slaves ran away, when they'd be "without a job, education, food, shelter, and in a society where he literally is viewed as less than human ?)

Remember this: As per jaeger, enslaved people in the South were better off as slaves than free men.
And you say you support liberty and freedom ?

That's a quite disgusting comment jaeger, and one I would expect from the likes of the slave owners who wrote the pro-slavery US Constitution
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Patrick "give me liberty or give me death" Henry would approve.



As a former poster said on here once, the numbers killed in mass shootings and "statistically insignificant"
What did Joe Stalin once say: "A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is just a statistic"
Sounds like you're a fan of "Uncle Joe", to go along with your defense of slavery.



One more time, slavery was NEVER legal in England/Britain, unlike the USA where it was not only legal but constitutionally protected.

1. Rich. I am sorry you have reading comprehension problems.
The " not slaves" refers to white impressed laborers.
The citation THEN goes on to explain that slaves from the colonies WERE BROUGHT TO BRITAIN WERE THEY WERE KEPT AS SLAVES BOUGH AND SOLD.

2. Those people that happen to be British was the British people in government...your parliament your monarch and your military .
I cited info that your parliament made over 100 acts supporting the slave trade.

3. Dude..they didn't have to invade. Simply starve and bomb your little island into submission. Your country would have surrendered and let tge Germans walk in and take over.
In a couple if decades you'd be speaking German

4. Well..in the context of being without food..protection..and means to provide it Ina country hostile to you?
Yeah..it was very much likely better to be a favored slave in Jefferson or Washington's household than kicked out into the streets where you were likely to be simply abducted and sold into more brutal slavery.
If you had education or a marketable skill?
And could make your way to states where slavery was less prevalent or Canada? You would be better off. But tgst unfortunsty was a rarity.

5. Well. Slavery was generally brutal.. and some were willing to risk almost certain recapture and at best torture and at worst death to be free.
But it was a rare slave that " made it" to freedom.
Why do you think the vast vast majority didn't run away?
Because the risks of being caught and the penalties far to harsh. Especially for an older black woman or man that had been inherited .

6. Nice try rich. See above.
7. No defense of slavery. Not one bit. Just acknowledgement of the realities of being an African slave in the BRITISH COLONIES!.

And as pointed out.. I very much want to stop mass killings of any kind. And propose meaningful reforms that will do so.
You however would take firearms from all but white wealthy people. And mass killings would continue .

8. So.? You act like that MEANS anything BRITAIN was the major slaver in the world. Duly protected and expanded by the British government. Both its Monarchy and it parliament. Within Britain itself slaves from the colonies were openly bought and sold..and expected to be returned if they ran away. I literally gave you examples of advertisements on British papers selling slaves..and offering rewards for runaway slaves..