There is a reason for that. Most Republicans not seeking reelection are doing so because their own histories are rapidly catching up with them.
Become a Patron!
To Date which US Presidential candidate will you be voting for & why?
- Thread starter SMOKIE
- Start date
- Status
alt-right .....LOL...so besides reading minds and slinging around idiotic jargon from a feminist 101 course from the local commiunity college do you have any other talents...
Huh? You are worse than your buddy Time when it comes to putting words into people's mouths than project it onto to others.
Reread the post that started it all. I was mocking establishment Republicans for saying how they are no longer the party of Lincoln but Trump instead by suggesting that they run a candidate with Lincoln's expatriation agenda just to see how much today's party really abandoned Lincoln. How you went from that to saying I said a candidate did that?
Sweet. Another globalist down.
He knows he'd lose so why not blame Trump?
I figured you'd like that.
you keep refusing to answer the question....come on girl you can do it just focus...just answer the question. no dipshit you said there was a plurality of republicans who wanted to ship Black Americans to Africa don't be chicken shit about it just answer the question..
So sorry ((((HazyShades)))
My deepest condolences to you and your family.
Prayers sent for you and your family.
Voters not candidates.
pathetic..... you make an asinine assertion to garner attention and then back peddle once your idiocy is called into question....changing this goal post as well dear.
Last edited:
I never use my dick...as well endowed as I am....Hazy has been stretched so wide ,by so many different people..only a size 14 boot gives him any kind of gratification....I use my boot on the bitch..LOL.
Pulse put his dick in ya again or are you still assburnt over the last fucking he gave ya?
Last edited:
hey pendejo "ILLEGAL' ain't a race.
No stupid check yours. The British made more money off the slave trade than anyone else.
"Portugal and Britain were the two most ‘successful’ slave-trading countries accounting for about 70% of all Africans transported to the Americas. Britain was the most dominant between 1640 and 1807 when the British slave trade was abolished. It is estimated that Britain transported 3.1 million Africans (of whom 2.7 million arrived) to the British colonies in the Caribbean, North and South America and to other countries."
Supreme Court Wipes Out Travel Ban Appeal
http://us.pressfrom.com/news/us/-94229-supreme-court-wipes-out-travel-ban-appeal/
While this does not remove the Hawaii Judge Derrick Watson's stay of the new travel ban, it wipes out the case he relied on to justify it in his previous stay of the travel ban & subsequently did in the latest. That stay must still be appealed, but will probably easily be overruled when it finally is.
http://us.pressfrom.com/news/us/-94229-supreme-court-wipes-out-travel-ban-appeal/
While this does not remove the Hawaii Judge Derrick Watson's stay of the new travel ban, it wipes out the case he relied on to justify it in his previous stay of the travel ban & subsequently did in the latest. That stay must still be appealed, but will probably easily be overruled when it finally is.
I'm not sure you've understood the definition of bigotry.
But yours isn't a new creed. Liberals screaming racist are about as common as it gets.
We've been through the liberal cancer for the last 8 years; we've SEEN the damage it does.
I guess my point is... All creeds aren't good creeds; some are incredibly stupid and destructive.
People who think it through typically filter out the debate's repetitious barf...
That's not bigotry, it's memory.
But thanks for volunteering to be the judge of whose post is bigotry...
You really are an ignorant motherfucker. Can you do some research before making it obvious you're an imbecile?
The Portuguese were the first to engage in the Atlantic slave trade in the 16th century. In 1526, they completed the first transatlantic slave voyage to Brazil, and other European countries soon followed (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade)
The major Atlantic slave trading nations, ordered by trade volume, were: the Portuguese, the British, the French, the Spanish, and the Dutch Empires. Several had established outposts on the African coast where they purchased slaves from local African leaders.[4] These slaves were managed by a factor who was established on or near the coast to expedite the shipping of slaves to the New World.
Now go back and re-read the comment to which I replied:
"imbecile.... the british (SIC) started slavery in the American colonies..the British and french made more money on slavery than any american... Europe made a fortune off the slave trade..the DNC the Party of slavery, the party of Jim Crow, the party of the KKK..."
No. The Portuguese and Dutch started the slave trade to the Americas. The slaves were captured by other negro tribes
then sold to Arabs who sold them to the Portuguese and Dutch.
https://debate.uvm.edu/dreadlibrary/mclean.html
The slave trade in Africa began long before the introduction of Europeans. Africans would enslave people for different reasons contrary to the modern stereotype, profit. According to the memoirs of an Italian born French slave trader, Captain Theodore Canot (also spelled Canneau) there are five principles for the enslavement of Africans by other Africans. The first reason for slavery was the prisoner of war. War between rival communities over land or for other fractions left people who were captured. These people were mainly adopted into the new culture, in order to increase the power of the dominant society; they were not only used for labor purposes.
What was your stupid uninformed comment again? "The British started the slave trade to the Americas"
Evidently because you cannot read worth a damn you then project your disability unto other people.
I understand that you and your little buddy Time like to compare apples to oranges and can't even follow your own trains of thought but maybe you should try a little..it might keep me from laughing at you some..
No, The Brits didn't start shit..they got in on the action. If you read a little you might find, if you can comprehend it
that the Brits hired some Poles to come save their first colony
http://www.pac1944.org/jamestown/roles-and-accomp.htm
because as a matter of rule you pasty white guys can't fight your way out of a paper bag.
https://debate.uvm.edu/dreadlibrary/mclean.html
Slavery was not an uncommon theme in African life; nevertheless, the introduction to the European world changed the dynamics and motivation for African enslavement. The Portuguese, under the leadership of Prince Henry the Navigator, were among the first Europeans to ‘discover’ Africa. Europeans were trying desperately to find a new route to Asia and other middle-Eastern countries in order to speed up their trade. "Portugal which had the important advantage of being a politically united kingdom, looked for a route round Africa partly to extend the crusade against the ‘infidel’ Turks and partly to seek whatever material rewards might lie in wait." The Portuguese then established themselves in Africa during the late fifteenth century. Initially the attraction to Africa was the abundance of gold. The Portuguese were the first to establish trade with the Africans, and they set up their first colony. "Colonizing before 1480 the [Portuguese staked claim in] the Atlantic islands of Azores, Madeira and Cape Verde as well as Sao Tome in West Africa."
"Other Europeans, notably the Spaniards, had also developed an interest.. with the result that by 1500 some 175,000 Africans had been shipped from Africa to Europe." Quickly the attraction to African gold ceased and the main focus turned to slavery. The European countries learned that the use of human bondage could increase their profit margins in their new colonies in the Americas. They deduced that Africans could work on the plantations, which would in turn greaten the wealth of the country. "In the early seventeenth century the governments of northern Europe, particularly England, France and the Netherlands, whose traders were already participating in a small way, began seizing land on a large scale in America and the Caribbean for slave-labor colonies."
So let's review..LOL
Your comment was that the Brits began the slave trade in America. They did not.
You then changed your comment on the fly to say that the Brits profited the most from the slave trade. They did not.
There were too many variables involved in the slave trade, too many profiting from it to be able to assert with a clear conscience that it was the Brits who profited the most.
In my opinion it was the Belgian cloth manufacturers who profited greatly with the least overhead but then,
my opinion is an educated one not a drunken assertion by an imbecile.
LOL..You guess your point is..Ha-Ha-Ha.
The guy is a bigot, plain and simple..no guessing needed as he's quite obvious about it.
you insane old cunt...my comment was that the British made more money off the slave trade than anyone in America.,and yes this was a british colony so they the british were the ones who gave legal authority for slavery within their colonies....or are you suggesting it was the Dutch who gave legal permission for slavery in an English colony...why don't you STFU and go chase lizard people through area 51 with your tracking chiquaquas. you nutjob......or better yet why don't you threaten to put me on your ignore list for the 16th time ( as if that was a threat)...you keep threatening ignoring people and then 2 weeks later you have your lips pressed against their asses....your behavior is really quite unstable and erratic. I attribute it to isolation and cheap mexican pharmacutecals.
Last edited:
Here you and the clairvoyant racist whisperer could study this.....LOOK a racist a racist....some things never change.
Last edited:
Actually, most of that is moot.
Pulse said the british started slavery in the american colonies. This was in response to
Anyway, assuming we are talking about the US, and they were, the US did not exist before the civil war. We didn't fight The Portuguese or the Dutch for our independence. We fought the British and the Kings rule over the colonies. The British ruled the colonies and slavery was legal. After the civil war and the beginning of the US, the legal slavery was carried over from British rule. In the US, the British started slavery. That's who we won our independence from and that is who the US modeled the slavery policy on.
The context of the discussion was slavery in the US. The British started slavery in the US. Going back to the origins of slavery on the continent is moot. It's like saying the Greeks started Democracy in the US, a bit of a stretch to say the least.
Hey has anybody seen that movie American Made?....with Tom Cruise...it was a hoot I really liked it...I go to the movie theater about once or twice a year. the film was about exposing the columbian drug trade and the goverment's role in it(Meena Arkansas)....I gotta think Tom Cruise makes these kinds of films to stick it to the goverment probablly because they give the Sceintologists such a hard time....anyways it was a really funny film.
Cruz then Trump.....
And only Cruz over Trump... because I thought he would loose...
I also though that if Trump won and the party got behind him.... he would be one of the most successful presidents.... we have 4 to 8 years to find out.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
If you new anything TRUE about Black Issues..... you would understand Pulses POV better.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
It had its funny moments without a doubt. I was surprised at its glossing over of so many aspects of Barry Seal's situation, lifestyle and demise in favor of portraying a swashbuckling maverick bucking the law. It's portrayal of the scandal in general was much more thin than I had expected to say the least. I realize it was portrayed through his eyes, but he had quite a role in that little debacle. It was like he didn't even know Ollie North.
Last edited:
Said the closed mind....
ignorance is bliss
I guess.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
Most of the Republican apparatchiks are insanely resentful that he came in from the outside, made a mockery of, and then proceeded to vanquish every one of their candidates. I mean they wasted hundreds of millions of dollars on those candidates during the primary.
I know and they just barely squeezed Clinton in there and no mention of the boys of Meena...but still I was pleaseantly surprised the film was made at all.
Oh yeah maybe I should have said if some of the repubes...have his back.
Draining the swamp means getting rid of the snakes in the president's party also.
BOTH parties are pretty much Equal in the sins they commit.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
While neither is golden, and there is massive corruption on both sides, I'd have to say that the Dems have raised the bar to an entirely new almost institutional level in the last few decades since the Clintons came to power. They almost make the Bush family legacy seem tame. At least they maintained the illusion of propriety for the normies and had the press acting as a watchdog to keep them in line. All that went out the window when BO was at the helm & used the NSA / CIA to clamp down on the press & blackmail them into complete submission.
Last edited:
sometimes I think the Dems are just the clown car in the circus and the republicans are the ring masters.....they are just way to quiet for me to trust. but yeah the dems have gone totally off rail...
This guy throws out an interesting take I don't know how much stock I put in it.....honestly shit is getting so crazy I don't know what to make of the world.But I gotta say the elite are throwing alot of people under the bus I don't know if it;s a diversion or what.
ELITES MOVE TO SACRIFICE CLINTONS JUST LIKE WEINSTEIN
https://www.infowars.com/elites-move-to-sacrifice-clintons-just-like-weinstein/
ELITES MOVE TO SACRIFICE CLINTONS JUST LIKE WEINSTEIN
https://www.infowars.com/elites-move-to-sacrifice-clintons-just-like-weinstein/
Heard they decided they were gonna give up Clinton way back during the Bilderberg conference. Problem is she goes down, everyone else goes down with her & she has been threatening all of them.
There s no greater thing one can do to drain the swamp than to put her behind bars. That will never happen.
if what you say is true why didn't she just have a heart attack with a pillow over her face...why would they let her live if she was threatening them.
Just gotta watch what develops. Trump is holding the JFK files over Poppa Bush's head. If they are fully released, Poppa is not gonna like it & that is about the only way HRC might go down.
I predict she will plead guilty to mishandling secret emails & receive a suspended sentence receiving immunity for her crimes while a number of officials choose to quietly retire without seeking reelection. Don't really see Trump putting four out of 5 former presidents behind bars where they belong. Do you?
Either that or Trump suffers a debilitating stroke after issuing orders to attack NK.
I predict she will plead guilty to mishandling secret emails & receive a suspended sentence receiving immunity for her crimes while a number of officials choose to quietly retire without seeking reelection. Don't really see Trump putting four out of 5 former presidents behind bars where they belong. Do you?
Either that or Trump suffers a debilitating stroke after issuing orders to attack NK.
I gotta say when I first heard Trump was releasing the JFK files that was my first thought as well...I mean why do it now, out of the blue...it seemed to me a shot across the bow to tell Mc Cain and his master Bush to shut their yaps or else.
Meh Barry ain't got nothing on the Clintons Google Clinton and Echelon.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
Papa Bush is nearly a vegetable...... nothing in the files will affect him. He will release because he's The Donald. Unless the SWAMP rises up.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
Trump didn't set the time table on the release.. that was set by law in the past.... he just has the authority to delay......
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
The problem was Poppa Bush created that system and when he lost to Clinton, there was too much power in very corrupt hands & Poppa didn't have a choice but to deal them in & let them run the day to day. When Georgie won the presidency back, he delegated most of the dirty work to Cheney who in turn used the Clintons as well running the seeder side of things. BO was just a figure head with Clinton running the show behind the scenes for Poppa while Cheney ran the high tech MIC. Cheney stepped back a bit and thats how HRC & BO started selling the F35, stealth tech & all our missile tech to China & the highest bidders. That's when everything went off the rails.
Trump will make a show of releasing the JFK stuff but everything pointing to Poppa will disappear.
Last edited:
My understanding is the documents were hidden through legislation, 25 years ago. And that the order was to expire in 25 years.
So he's not so much releasing the documents as much as he is refusing to keep them hidden.
Democrats Claim ‘American Workers First’ As GOP Bill Outsources Food-Industry Jobs
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...m-gop-h2c-food-outsourcing-guest-worker-bill/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...m-gop-h2c-food-outsourcing-guest-worker-bill/
we have now offically entered the Bizzarro world.
That is what the link from the Breitbart home page said.
They were sealed at the time then resealed... because principles involved that cared were/are still alive... some still active in Government...
I don't thing Trump will do many favors for those people. .. unless forced too.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
- Status