Shifting tone, Trump entertains the notion he could lose

[ClutchClark]

5 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

What, it is a fact because Bill O'Reilly said so? What 'honest historians' have said so? How is this a fact exactly? Who says you need to give slaves meat, bread and other staples to keep them strong? they did not do that, they worked them until they died and brought in more!

 

They were housed in barns and given food in Belsen! Ever checked in to the quality of the food? Was it good to keep them healthy and strong for the slave labour?..............Nope!

 

Your arguments to defend the indefensible are simply dreadful. You would get far more respect if when Bill O'Reilly screws up you said "yup, he screwed up', but to defend his comments concerning slavery you display no moral ethics.

 

Its part of World History...not just the US. 

 

Since it bothers you so much I am sure you are doing all you can to stop the modern day slave labor on fishing boats right here in Thai waters right?

 

BTW, the slaves back then were fed meat. One of the staples was actually salt cod. Onviously, they were fed and housed. They were investments just like a horse or cow and were cared for just the same. 

 

It was a long time ago...get over it.

[Andaman Al]

10 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Its part of World History...not just the US. 

 

Since it bothers you so much I am sure you are doing all you can to stop the modern day slave labor on fishing boats right here in Thai waters right?

 

BTW, the slaves back then were fed meat. One of the staples was actually salt cod. Onviously, they were fed and housed. They were investments just like a horse or cow and were cared for just the same. 

 

It was a long time ago...get over it.

Clutch Clark you amaze  disgust me. Despite your sometimes alternative thoughts on here you are generally lucid, articulate and present a reasonable case. The defense here that the slaves that built the white house 'must have been, or rather WERE' well treated is just unbelievable. Just what exactly is 'part of world history'? that the slaves were well treated??

 

What the hell has slaves on Thai fishing boats got to do with O'Reilly saying 'the slaves at the whitehouse building were well treated'? It wasn't even called the white house then. Why would they have been treated any better than any other slave in the US?

 

10 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

They were investments just like a horse or cow and were cared for just the same. 

How gracious of you. Not sure how many horses and cows were serially raped, made to fight to the death for the entertainment of their owners, or whipped to the bone for minor transgressions. You should be ashamed of yourself Clutch Clark. We have learned to expect this from Ulysses G, but you just fell off your perch.

 

O'Reilly said what he said to try and diminish the effect of the speech given by the first lady, no other reason, it was/is pathetic.

Edited August 18, 2016 by Andaman Al

[Ulysses G.]

1 minute ago, Andaman Al said:

You should be ashamed of yourself Clutch Clark.

 

Ashamed of posting FACTS that contradict Andaman Al's foolish arguments.

[Andaman Al]

3 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Ashamed of posting FACTS that contradict Andaman Al's foolish arguments.

What Facts have been posted Ulysses G that support the subject matter of Bill O'Reilly stating that slaves that built the Whitehouse were well fed and looked after? What facts have either you or Clutch Clark given to support an imbecilic argument by O'Reilly given as a cheap shot at Michelle Obama? Just exactly what are my foolish arguments? You make the personal insult, so explain yourself.

 

Clutch, i figured you for a more reasoned intelligent person. Every day's a school day.

[Ulysses G.]

15 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

What Facts have been posted Ulysses G that support the subject matter of Bill O'Reilly stating that slaves that built the Whitehouse were well fed and looked after?

 

He did not say the slaves were 'looked after' - more fiction.  He said that had they 'decent lodgings'. Jesse J. Holland, who wrote a book on slaves who built the White House, confirmed that the slaves were housed in a barn and were provided with food. That is a fact. The quality of those things is subjective. Can you PROVE otherwise?

Edited August 18, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

42 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

BTW, the slaves back then were fed meat. One of the staples was actually salt cod. Onviously, they were fed and housed.

 

That is a FACT and don't forget lobster.

 

Dirt-cheap because they were so copious, lobsters were routinely fed to prisoners, apprentices, slaves and children during the colonial era and beyond. In Massachusetts, some servants allegedly sought to avoid lobster-heavy diets by including stipulations in their contracts that they would only be served the shellfish twice a week.

http://www.history.com/news/a-taste-of-lobster-history

[Andaman Al]

1 hour ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

That is a FACT and don't forget lobster.

 

Dirt-cheap because they were so copious, lobsters were routinely fed to prisoners, apprentices, slaves and children during the colonial era and beyond. In Massachusetts, some servants allegedly sought to avoid lobster-heavy diets by including stipulations in their contracts that they would only be served the shellfish twice a week.

http://www.history.com/news/a-taste-of-lobster-history

And why were they fed Lobster?  Because no civilised person would eat them, because according to the bible the eating of such things was an abomination unto the Lord. You think they got Lobster thermador?  Lobster only became popular in the 30's. Anyway, it makes me laugh how you are still trying to state that slaves were treated well. What you are trying to prove is disgusting.

[Ulysses G.]

5 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

And why were they fed Lobster?

 

 

Try reading the link. "When the first European settlers reached North America, lobsters were so plentiful that they would reportedly wash ashore in piles up to 2 feet high." In other words, they were cheap. I don't think your crazy theory had anything to do with it.

 

I never said that slaves were treated well. Once again, you are making things up.

[Andaman Al]

6 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

 

Try reading the link. "When the first European settlers reached North America, lobsters were so plentiful that they would reportedly wash ashore in piles up to 2 feet high." In other words, they were cheap. I don't think your crazy theory had anything to do with it.

 

I never said that slaves were treated well. Once again, you are making things up.

read the rest of the article from which you are quoting. If a Dem said the sky was blue you would argue for purple. Now stop and go and find another playground to play in. This is infantile. You supported O'Reilly's take down of Mrs Obama and it is pathetic. Live with it.

[ClutchClark]

2 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

Clutch Clark you amaze  disgust me. Despite your sometimes alternative thoughts on here you are generally lucid, articulate and present a reasonable case. The defense here that the slaves that built the white house 'must have been, or rather WERE' well treated is just unbelievable. Just what exactly is 'part of world history'? that the slaves were well treated??

 

What the hell has slaves on Thai fishing boats got to do with O'Reilly saying 'the slaves at the whitehouse building were well treated'? It wasn't even called the white house then. Why would they have been treated any better than any other slave in the US?

 

How gracious of you. Not sure how many horses and cows were serially raped, made to fight to the death for the entertainment of their owners, or whipped to the bone for minor transgressions. You should be ashamed of yourself Clutch Clark. We have learned to expect this from Ulysses G, but you just fell off your perch.

 

O'Reilly said what he said to try and diminish the effect of the speech given by the first lady, no other reason, it was/is pathetic.

 

AA,

 

Not sure what has you so fired up tonight but getting angry over something that happened 100's of years ago seems like a wasted effort. 

 

But if slavery and servitude and exploitation of your fellow human beings is something you are very passionate about then there is modern day slavery right here in the waters of Thailand and they need help.

 

Today. Here. Now. 

 

 

[Ulysses G.]

19 minutes ago, Adaman Al said: "You supported O'Reilly's take down of Mrs Obama and it is pathetic. Live with it."

 

Takedown? He was verifying what she said and adding historical context. You don't know what you are talking about once again. Talk about pathetic.

 

This is what he actually said:

 

O'REILLY: “As we mentioned Talking Points memo, Michelle Obama referenced slaves building the White House in referring to the evolution of America in a positive way. It was a positive comment. The history behind her remark is fascinating. George Washington selected the site in 1791, and as president laid the cornerstone in 1792. Washington was then running the country out of Philadelphia. Slaves did participate in the construction of the White House. Records show about 400 payments made to slave masters between 1795 and 1801. In addition, free blacks, whites, and immigrants also worked on the massive building. There were no illegal immigrants at that time. If you could make it here, you could stay here. In 1800, President John Adams took up residence in what was then called the executive mansion. It was only later on they named it the White House. But Adams was in there with Abigail and they were still hammering nails. The construction was still going on. Slaves that worked there were well fed and had decent lodgings provided by the government, which stopped hiring slave labor in 1802. However, the Feds did not forbid subcontractors from using slave labor. So Michelle Obama is essentially correct in citing slaves as builders of the White House but there were others working as well.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/28/oreilly_rebuts_vicious_attacks_from_media_deceivers.html
 

Edited August 18, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[Srikcir]

8 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

There is also no evidence to prove him wrong. However, you do not want to consider that.

Regardless of how African slaves were treated, they worked under involuntary servitude and segregation not experienced by other immigrants building Washington D.C. buildings. The USA government paid slave masters and not the slaves directly for their labor.

If one had to guess as to their treatment, consider that much of their work was craftsman quality or specialized skills as opposed to unskilled field cotton laborers and performed under public eye as opposed to private plantations. They worked side by side with free blacks, indentured and free whites, and immigrants. Imposing harsh living conditions only on African slaves would have disrupted the overall work environment and affected construction progress.

[Ulysses G.]

17 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Regardless of how African slaves were treated, they worked under involuntary servitude and segregation not experienced by other immigrants building Washington D.C. buildings. 

 

Everyone knows that. O'Reilly merely said that the slaves who built the White House were well fed and had a decent place to sleep.

 

He did not defend slavery. In fact, he condemned it.

Edited August 18, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[ClutchClark]

5 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Everyone knows that. O'Reilly merely said that the slaves who built the White House were well fed and had a decent place to sleep.

 

He did not defend slavery. In fact, he condemned it.

 

With the new PC brigade I wonder how and if the subject of slavery will even be taught in schools anymore. 

 

Apparently the topic has become so sensitive to some Americans that to even say anything about it that is factual but not part of the "Roots" narrative will get you labeled as a racist and worse.

 

I suppose each post of ours should be prefaced with a disclaimer condemning it but I don't know if even that would suffice.

 

 

 

 

 

[iReason]

Consider this:

Are you one of them?

 

Nearly 20% of Trump Fans Think Freeing the Slaves was a bad idea

Nearly one in five don't support the Emancipation Proclamation (sub-title)

"Donald Trump appears to have high levels of support among the nation’s intolerant population, according to a New York Times deep dive into polling data."

"The Times found that nearly 20% of Trump supporters did not approve of freeing the slaves, according to a January YouGov/Economist poll that asked respondents if they supported or disapproved of the executive order that freed all slaves in the states that were in rebellion against the federal government”

—Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation.

http://time.com/4236640/donald-trump-racist-supporters/