Totally offensive

What do you think about it? Or are you condoning it by classifying the types of black people, much the same as Hitler had measuring sticks to classify the different types of non-Aryans whom he targeted.

Because that's what it sounded like to me.

JDIdiot, ready to take racism to a higher level.

Though the link fortunately doesn't have any real comments from the perp I did hear his comments on the radio. His explanation (if you want to acccept it) is that there is a difference between "black" people and persons he categorizes with the 'N' word. A thought that has been echoed in film, TV, and popular culture. One group is law abiding, responsible, and a positive credit to society and the other group acts like Justin Bieber, Eminem, 50 Cents, and Mike Tyson. So you can accept his explanation or not but you would have to condemn a lot of people who are escaping notice.
I heard the same comment frequently when I was in the navy from black sailors who were making the service a career. They were usually describing someone who may not survive even four years without an arrest.

This has nothing to do with the Confederacy or the Union. Both sides had people with little regard for intellectual capacity of freed slaves despite ample evidence to the contrary. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Not only are what you saying is true, it wasn't always controversial. Not everyone liked it, but many people understood it in that vein.

You realize, of course, there wouldn't have been a war in the first place if not for the traitors of the Confederacy, right?
Originally Posted by ExNYer

NyCPTBGer, show me the word "civil" in your sentence... LOL

not a hypocrite either.

I know you are smart enough to get the point, so I can only conclude you are purposefully being an asshole. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

+1

Yes, you can - so once again you are just being a prick. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

+1

You inability to understand cause and effect is expected, moron.

Ask yourself: which came first? The start of the Civil War by the Confederate traitors? Or the lynchings in NY?

So, I repeat:

You realize, of course, there wouldn't have been a war in the first place if not for the traitors of the Confederacy, right? Originally Posted by ExNYer

Your "cause", you dumb-fuck Yankee mick-prick, was overt mick racism towards blacks -- a racist view of blacks which existed before the Civil War.

The "effect", you dumb-fuck Yankee mick-prick, was racist, rampaging New York City micks who willy-nilly lynched blacks from lamp posts as those racist micks also sought to burn black schools, homes and churches wherever they could find them, you dumb-fuck Yankee mick-prick living a pathetic life in exile in Dixie.

BTW, you benighted Yankee jackass, you cannot name one Confederate leader who was tried and convicted of treason -- because it was determined that that charge would not hold up even in a Yankee kangaroo court!

Actually, it is not an analogy. Read his original post. How can you put IRA in that sentence about the Civil War and the Confederacy being traitors and have it make any sense?

He is just changing the subject.

And, for the record, the IRA were trying to overthrow a system of oppression, not prolong it like the Confederacy. Originally Posted by ExNYer

It's been proven to your lying ass before that your facetious notion that Lincoln and Congress went to war to end slavery is a lie, you lying Yankee jackass. And your lying-Yankee-ass still cannot name one Confederate leader who was tried and convicted of treason, you benighted Yankee jackass living a pathetic life in exile in Dixie!

BTW, where's Old-Twerp's ignorant and unsolicited analysis of the "thumper" aspects of this IRA issue and how it is used to justify the use of explosives to kill and maim innocent women and children?

Your "cause", you dumb-fuck Yankee mick-prick, was overt mick racism towards blacks -- a racist view of blacks which existed before the Civil War.

The "cause" was over racism throughout the entire South, Cock Whisperer. The lynchings would never have happened absent the South starting the Civil War. Those rioting "micks" never lynched any blacks in NY City before the Civil War, did they, cum drooling Confederate?

BTW, you benighted Yankee jackass, you cannot name one Confederate leader who was tried and convicted of treason -- because it was determined that that charge would not hold up even in a Yankee kangaroo court!

No, dipshit, it was because Lincoln and northern leaders did not want the war to end in retaliation killings. The South would not have surrendered when it did if the leaders knew they would all be hanged. It was a negotiated surrender that let the traitors off the hook.

It's been proven to your lying ass before that your facetious notion that Lincoln and Congress went to war to end slavery is a lie, you lying Yankee jackass. And your lying-Yankee-ass still cannot name one Confederate leader who was tried and convicted of treason, you benighted Yankee jackass living a pathetic life in exile in Dixie!

Such a thing has never been proven, Cock Whisperer, becsuase I never said that Lincoln and Congress went to war to end slaver. Again you are trying to put works in my mouth. What I actually said was that the South seceded to PRESERVE SLAVERY - something that is demonstrably true, faggot.

BTW, where's Old-Twerp's ignorant and unsolicited analysis of the "thumper" aspects of this IRA issue and how it is used to justify the use of explosives to kill and maim innocent women and children?

Would you feel better if the IRA just enslaved women and children? Does that comport with your Confederate mentality? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You want some cheese with that whine, Cock Whisperer?

BTW, where's Old-Twerp's ignorant and unsolicited analysis of the "thumper" aspects of this IRA issue and how it is used to justify the use of explosives to kill and maim innocent women and children?
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

OK IBMoron, unlike you I have to go to work but I'll give you the short version:
--The Irish/English issues have always been more about economics and English takeover of Irish lands than they have been about religion. Yes, religion is part of it, but as is the case with many long running issues it is more economic than anything. As was slavery, Rwanda, the Cuban revolution, etc.

I lived in NYC--in a heavily Irish area--during some of the bloodiest times. I heard lots of pro-Irish, pro-IRA speeches but very, very few Thumped and said "kill the English because they are heretics!" It was about "Kick the English out of our Ireland", and economic issues. So since it wasn't a Thumper issue I won't artificially turn it into one just for your amusement.

As to explosives that are terrorist weapons in civilian neighborhoods, pubs, etc., I am against them and consider them cowardly acts no matter what group is setting them off. Just as I consider to be cowardly the wonderful decades of slavery, separate-but-equal, and suppression of civil rights that populated "Dixie" for two hundred years.

Got your answer, IBMassa?

The "cause" was over racism throughout the entire South, Cock Whisperer. The lynchings would never have happened absent the South starting the Civil War. Those rioting "micks" never lynched any blacks in NY City before the Civil War, did they, cum drooling Confederate? Wrong again, you ignorant Yankee asshole, those racist New York City micks rioted because they were afraid blacks working for lower wages would take their jobs!

No, dipshit, it was because Lincoln and northern leaders did not want the war to end in retaliation killings. The South would not have surrendered when it did if the leaders knew they would all be hanged. It was a negotiated surrender that let the traitors off the hook. In other words, no Confederate leaders were tried and convicted of treason, you ignorant Yankee asshole!

Such a thing has never been proven, Cock Whisperer, becsuase I never said that Lincoln and Congress went to war to end slaver. Again you are trying to put works in my mouth. What I actually said was that the South seceded to PRESERVE SLAVERY - something that is demonstrably true, faggot. In other words, your blessed Yankee brethren didn't make ending slavery a "war aim" in 1861 as you implied, you ignorant Yankee asshole.

Would you feel better if the IRA just enslaved women and children? Does that comport with your Confederate mentality? "Fear" of dying in some random bombing is a form of enslavement, you ignorant Yankee asshole living in exile in Dixie.

You want some cheese with that whine, Cock Whisperer? You're wheezing again, you ignorant Yankee asshole living in exile in Dixie. Originally Posted by ExNYer

OK IBMoron, unlike you I have to go to work but I'll give you the short version:
--The Irish/English issues have always been more about economics and English takeover of Irish lands than they have been about religion. Yes, religion is part of it, but as is the case with many long running issues it is more economic than anything. As was slavery, Rwanda, the Cuban revolution, etc.

I lived in NYC--in a heavily Irish area--during some of the bloodiest times. I heard lots of pro-Irish, pro-IRA speeches but very, very few Thumped and said "kill the English because they are heretics!" It was about "Kick the English out of our Ireland", and economic issues. So since it wasn't a Thumper issue I won't artificially turn it into one just for your amusement.

As to explosives that are terrorist weapons in civilian neighborhoods, pubs, etc., I am against them and consider them cowardly acts no matter what group is setting them off. Just as I consider to be cowardly the wonderful decades of slavery, separate-but-equal, and suppression of civil rights that populated "Dixie" for two hundred years.

Got your answer, IBMassa? Originally Posted by Old-T

Your supposed "answer" only illustrates your ignorance of the Protestant-Catholic aspects of the struggle in Ireland, Old-Twerp: because they are historically present. And slavery existed in the United States -- not just Dixie -- until the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, Old-Twerp.

Your supposed "answer" only illustrates your ignorance of the Protestant-Catholic aspects of the struggle in Ireland, Old-Twerp: because they are historically present. And slavery existed in the United States -- not just Dixie -- until the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, Old-Twerp. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Glad to see you can take a punch but it's obvious the ref should have stopped this fight.

I was working in Dublin for 2 months at the beginning of the year. That "answer" was exactly right. Religion is a tiny percent of the total equation. The 2 sides happen to be on different sides of the religion issue but they're both Christians.

You're wrong.....again.

You want some cheese with that whine, Cock Whisperer? Originally Posted by ExNYer

Glad to see you can take a punch but it's obvious the ref should have stopped this fight.

I was working in Dublin for 2 months at the beginning of the year. That "answer" was exactly right. Religion is a tiny percent of the total equation. The 2 sides happen to be on different sides of the religion issue but they're both Christians.

You're wrong.....again. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Only in your ignorant, dweeb little mind, MasterDickMuncher. Religion has played a major part in that struggle since its very beginning, MasterDickMuncher: just ask the Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England -- Oliver Cromwell.

More insults, more raving, more regurgitating all over ECCIE. Chunky monkey!

Thanks, IBIdiot. We you're a fucking piece of work.

Here it is, your moment of ZEN!

Naturally, Chris Rock offers the definitive treatment of the distinction to which a couple of posters have alluded in this thread:

http://youtu.be/f3PJF0YE-x4

Originally Posted by ExNYer The "cause" was over racism throughout the entire South, Cock Whisperer. The lynchings would never have happened absent the South starting the Civil War. Those rioting "micks" never lynched any blacks in NY City before the Civil War, did they, cum drooling Confederate?

Wrong again, you ignorant Yankee asshole, those racist New York City micks rioted because they were afraid blacks working for lower wages would take their jobs!

More ignorance from the Confederate illiterate. They rioted because they were getting drafted as soon as they stepped off the boat. They were poor and cannon fodder, while wealthy Americans could buy their way out of the draft.

No, dipshit, it was because Lincoln and northern leaders did not want the war to end in retaliation killings. The South would not have surrendered when it did if the leaders knew they would all be hanged. It was a negotiated surrender that let the traitors off the hook.

In other words, no Confederate leaders were tried and convicted of treason, you ignorant Yankee asshole!

But it wasn't because no court would convict them as you ignorantly wrote. It was only due to northern mercy and the desire for peace that they escaped trial.

Such a thing has never been proven, Cock Whisperer, because I never said that Lincoln and Congress went to war to end slavery. Again you are trying to put works in my mouth. What I actually said was that the South seceded to PRESERVE SLAVERY - something that is demonstrably true, faggot.

In other words, your blessed Yankee brethren didn't make ending slavery a "war aim" in 1861 as you implied, you ignorant Yankee asshole.

I didn't say that and I didn't imply it either, tranny fuckee. I said that the South seceded to preserve slavery - that was all that they cared about. Everything else is you trying to put words in my mouth.

Would you feel better if the IRA just enslaved women and children? Does that comport with your Confederate mentality?

"Fear" of dying in some random bombing is a form of enslavement, you ignorant Yankee asshole living in exile in Dixie.

Not even you can be THAT stupid, tranny fuckee. YOU could die from a random Al Queda bombing at any minute. Does that mean you are enslaved right now? That was a truly desperate argument you made, you lying Cock Whisperer.

You want some cheese with that whine, Cock Whisperer? You're wheezing again, you ignorant Yankee asshole living in exile in Dixie. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You want some cheese with that whine, Cock Whisperer?

Your supposed "answer" only illustrates your ignorance of the Protestant-Catholic aspects of the struggle in Ireland, Old-Twerp: because they are historically present. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Glad to see you can take a punch but it's obvious the ref should have stopped this fight.

I was working in Dublin for 2 months at the beginning of the year. That "answer" was exactly right. Religion is a tiny percent of the total equation. The 2 sides happen to be on different sides of the religion issue but they're both Christians.

You're wrong.....again. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Only in your ignorant, dweeb little mind, MasterDickMuncher. Religion has played a major part in that struggle since its very beginning, MasterDickMuncher: just ask the Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England -- Oliver Cromwell. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You have an excellent point IB! And based upon your suggestion I tried to ask Oliver C, but I discovered something very odd: he has been dead for over three and a half centuries!! You may want to cross him off your Christmas card list, I doubt you will be getting one back from him.
But I also discovered that things have changed just a TINY bit since the mid-1600s. Religion plays a much smaller role in many people’s lives. What was a “good” reason (not really, but I am sure you can follow my meaning) to kill someone in Great Britain 3 ½ centuries ago is no longer seen that way by most folks.

I know you are shocked by this, but get over it. You are (drum roll) WRONG!!!!! Again. As most sentient beings on here come to expect from you. But you, sitting in mommy’s basement in “Dixie” (your equivalent of Never Never Land), clearly know more about what motivates Irish and English today than they do themselves. Sounds obvious to me. Rant on, IBDelusional.

And slavery existed in the United States -- not just Dixie -- until the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, Old-Twerp. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

As to your slavery comment, and your refusal to admit that the south--your beloved Dixie--could ever do any wrong, I would ask the Great Researcher to put up some numbers for us:

In 1860, how many slaves were in Massachusetts vs Georgia?


How many in New York vs Alabama?


How many in Pennsylvania vs Virginia?


Very simple questions. Census data is likely available. Nice thing about numbers, they illuminate so much, don't you think?


http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html

Hi Jack!