Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

So, where did the hot chick fishing in a bikini go?

(07-20-2019, 10:30 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]So, where did the hot chick fishing in a bikini go?

I was going to get smart and post a pic of a heavy woman in a bikini fishing.  I searched google and the only images of girls in bikinis fishing were all smoking hot.   I like we’re youre thinking here.  A thread like that could unite the board!!

Check out Jacki Shea on the Tubes!

(07-21-2019, 09:32 AM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]Check out Jacki Shea on the Tubes!

That poor woman is going to get sunburned in unspeakable places. Let me fetch my sunscreen and apply it for her. I'm so caring.

(07-21-2019, 11:40 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2019, 09:32 AM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]Check out Jacki Shea on the Tubes!

That poor woman is going to get sunburned in unspeakable places. Let me fetch my sunscreen and apply it for her. I'm so caring.

A true humanitarian. Bravo!

(07-20-2019, 12:19 AM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ]Bullseye....
The 1st Legal slave owner in the US was a black man by the name of Anthony Johnson, He was a tobacco farmer in Maryland
North Carolina's Largest slave owner in 1860 was a black man named William Ellison
In 1830 there were 3,775 FREE black people that owned 12,740 Slaves
So quit blaming the White Man for you problems

Do you even bother to research a damn thing you post?

William Ellison owned had the most slaves of any BLACK slave owners in SOUTH Carolina, meaning he owned 53 at the most, 40 when he died.

The number you cite from 1830 included free blacks who purchased the freedom of family members and were then legally considered their owner. Either way, 12,740 slaves is less than 1% of the total.

So quit trying to deflect blame from white slave owners with horse [BLEEP].

(07-21-2019, 01:01 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-20-2019, 12:19 AM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ]Bullseye....
The 1st Legal slave owner in the US was a black man by the name of Anthony Johnson, He was a tobacco farmer in Maryland
North Carolina's Largest slave owner in 1860 was a black man named William Ellison
In 1830 there were 3,775 FREE black people that owned 12,740 Slaves
So quit blaming the White Man for you problems

Do you even bother to research a damn thing you post?

William Ellison owned had the most slaves of any BLACK slave owners in SOUTH Carolina, meaning he owned 53 at the most, 40 when he died.

The number you cite from 1830 included free blacks who purchased the freedom of family members and were then legally considered their owner. Either way, 12,740 slaves is less than 1% of the total.

So quit trying to deflect blame from white slave owners with horse [BLEEP].

My Reseach said NORTH Carolina so......
I Notice you didn't try to refute my 1st point
And according to my reseach, the numbers are correct so it's not equine droppings.....

(07-21-2019, 01:01 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-20-2019, 12:19 AM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ]Bullseye....
The 1st Legal slave owner in the US was a black man by the name of Anthony Johnson, He was a tobacco farmer in Maryland
North Carolina's Largest slave owner in 1860 was a black man named William Ellison
In 1830 there were 3,775 FREE black people that owned 12,740 Slaves
So quit blaming the White Man for you problems

Do you even bother to research a damn thing you post?

William Ellison owned had the most slaves of any BLACK slave owners in SOUTH Carolina, meaning he owned 53 at the most, 40 when he died.

The number you cite from 1830 included free blacks who purchased the freedom of family members and were then legally considered their owner. Either way, 12,740 slaves is less than 1% of the total.

So quit trying to deflect blame from white slave owners with horse [BLEEP].

Way to miss the point. It was not deflection but inclusion. Black slave owners existed and wanted economic prosperity as much as whites. If we look at Ellison, not only did this free slave own slaves, he devoted his entire wealth to supporting the Confederacy. From plantation crops to taxes, to bond purchases. Let us not forget over 65,000 blacks served in the Confederate military. There is a side that doesn't get talked about like it should. Whitewashing history like this is dishonest.

(07-21-2019, 03:02 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2019, 01:01 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]Do you even bother to research a damn thing you post?

William Ellison owned had the most slaves of any BLACK slave owners in SOUTH Carolina, meaning he owned 53 at the most, 40 when he died.

The number you cite from 1830 included free blacks who purchased the freedom of family members and were then legally considered their owner. Either way, 12,740 slaves is less than 1% of the total.

So quit trying to deflect blame from white slave owners with horse [BLEEP].

Way to miss the point. It was not deflection but inclusion. Black slave owners existed and wanted economic prosperity as much as whites. If we look at Ellison, not only did this free slave own slaves, he devoted his entire wealth to supporting the Confederacy. From plantation crops to taxes, to bond purchases. Let us not forget over 65,000 blacks served in the Confederate military. There is a side that doesn't get talked about like it should. Whitewashing history like this is dishonest.

The overwhelming majority were not allowed to have weapons.  Most served as forced laborers, building roads, etc. Of the few who did actually fight for the Confederacy, most either did so under duress or the misguided hope of improving their status and earning freedom.

Whitewashing history, indeed.

It's silly to pretend that because some blacks were slave owners that blacks as a whole were supportive of the Confederacy. If, given the choice of removing slavery or keeping it, an overwhelming percentage of blacks would have been in favor of abolishing it. I realize the point is that there were some who favored it, but, that is the exception. Much like today, the main supporters of any institution tend to be the ones most benefiting from it. This tends to hold true in all areas with the exception of religion, where the benefits can be pushed into the afterlife.

Likewise, it's silly to claim that people in the south were traitors. I've discussed this on the message board before. People did not see America as one country, but a confederation of nations that were bound together voluntarily out of mutual interest. If the UN waged war on the US and won it would fundamentally change the nature of the US's sovereignty. It would be foolish for people 100 years from now to see the US as traitors. Robert E. Lee was torn as to whether he would fight for the US or his state (synonym for nation). Even though he was opposed to slavery, he thought it was an overreach of the federal government to wage war on a sovereign nation for defending their own interest. He was also instrumental in rebuilding relationships once the South was defeated, but that's all I really want to say on that subject.  

Since this thread hasn't died, I figure I'd chime in with my thoughts on the incident that kicked off this thread. Firstly, I think Republicans are foolish for defending Trumps tweets about "The Squad." Like a lot of what Trump does, his tweets were insensitive and inflammatory. I don't mind that. Whether or not people on the left will admit it, they have turned political correctness into a tool to leverage power over those with which they disagree. It is no longer a call to civility, but a method for control. Trump's willingness to oppose this is a large part of his popularity. People that feel like they are being silenced are enabled by his boldness and are following his lead. As a person that believes the politically correct narrative has gone to far, I support Trump in this, and understand why people follow him.

That said, in this case, he also demonstrated prejudice. This really should not be debatable unless one is more interested in team politics than truth. If his statements were just pointed at Ilhan Omar, I'd be less inclined to make that claim. She was given asylum by the US and speaks very poorly of it. While I don't think it disqualifies her from saying those things, it makes the sentiment expressed by Trump a reasonable statement, even if it's still inflammatory. However, when he directs it at multiple congresswomen who have a different ethnicity and were born here, this defense goes out the window. In order for it to be considered reasonable, there has to be some criteria that would connect them to a country outside the US and there is none in this case. Even if you believe their rhetoric is anti-American, that is not enough to see them as foreign. I have a hard time believing he would say this in response to negative comments made by Bernie Sanders, Warren, Pelosi or Schumer. It's one thing to tell people to leave if they don't like it, it's another to say go back to their countries when they were born here. This context warps the message into something that is dangerous, as evidenced by the chants "Send her back." I think needs to be acknowledged and admonished. Trump did walk it back a bit by saying he didn't like the chant, but he should specifically apologize for his role in that.

Now that I've covered the basics, it moves me into my last point. I don't believe his comments were RACIST. I don't buy into the theory that racism is power plus prejudice. That theory is founded in activism. Racism has always been about one group being superior over another, based on race alone. There is no evidence of this anywhere in Trump's history. The left's rampant disregard for the gravity of the word is slowly beginning to render it meaningless. Calling someone a racist, much like political correctness, is a tool used for control, not respect. AOC's willingness to insinuate that Pelosi is attacking women of color is a political ploy. Harris, hinting that Biden has racist undertones, is using it as a tactic. 

I believe the rhetorical devices used by the leftist elites is no different than what they despise about Trump (in fact, I'd argue that Trump is the result of a backlash against the progressives desire to control the narrative, but that would be a digression). It's an escalated, calculated maneuver designed take a sentiment felt by their base and harness it to advance personally. They warp legitimate grievances to advance their own agenda. You don't have to literally agree with the words being said to relate to the sentiment behind them. In Trump's case, the sentiment he exploits is the changing landscape of the American ideal. In the progressive case, the sentiment they exploit is the inequality that is inevitable in any system. Once the people begin to attach that cause as the primary source of their woes, they naturally begin to correlate that cause as a source of their ills. The truth is there are all sorts of factors that contribute to disenfranchisement, but people typically only hone in on a few. Their world outlook is often guided by those who control the narrative. It would be wise of us to see each other as allies, and fight back against the people that are using division to gain control. Like I said in the opening paragraph, the main supporters of any institution tend to be the ones most benefiting from it.

(07-21-2019, 08:22 AM)Jags Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-20-2019, 10:30 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]So, where did the hot chick fishing in a bikini go?

I was going to get smart and post a pic of a heavy woman in a bikini fishing.  I searched google and the only images of girls in bikinis fishing were all smoking hot.   I like we’re youre thinking here.  A thread like that could unite the board!!

They're back to bickering so the diversion didn't work. 

(07-21-2019, 07:00 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2019, 03:02 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]Way to miss the point. It was not deflection but inclusion. Black slave owners existed and wanted economic prosperity as much as whites. If we look at Ellison, not only did this free slave own slaves, he devoted his entire wealth to supporting the Confederacy. From plantation crops to taxes, to bond purchases. Let us not forget over 65,000 blacks served in the Confederate military. There is a side that doesn't get talked about like it should. Whitewashing history like this is dishonest.

The overwhelming majority were not allowed to have weapons.  Most served as forced laborers, building roads, etc.  Of the few who did actually fight for the Confederacy, most either did so under duress or the misguided hope of improving their status and earning freedom.

Whitewashing history, indeed.

Thanks for proving my whitewashing point. You fail to recognize that blacks were just as ingrained into slavery as whites. They were establishing wealth on the backs of slaves just like the evil whites.

As to the civil war, consider the fact that blacks were not free as of yet and could not fight whether for the Union or the Confederacy. They simply were not able to take up arms by law. With that said, the Confederate victory at First Manassas was because of blacks within the ranks whether as a service corp or fighter. Confederate numbers dwarfed Union numbers because of blacks. Frederick Douglas was pissed that blacks would take up arms for the Confederacy, yet the Lincoln Administration strictly forbid it..."fighting the rebels with only one hand, the white one." Sadly, the Union quickly turned to "contraband" to support Union war efforts.

Frederick Douglas states in 1861, "it is now pretty well established that there are at the present moment many colored men in the Confederate army doing duty not only as cooks, servants, and laborers, but as real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets. Slaveholders accept the aid of the black man," he said. "Why should a good cause be less wisely conducted?"

If anyone accepts blacks freely fought for the Union, you would also have to admit they freely fought for the Confederacy.

Fun facts. There were large groups of light-skinned blacks that fought for the Confederacy because they felt closer to the planter class (half white blood).

Support Dem, support slavery.

I'm not exactly sure what you are hoping to achieve with that point. Yes, there were blacks that had slaves, but the institution as a whole was decisively racist. Is there a point that Bullseye made that you're trying to counter? Maybe I missed it.

(07-21-2019, 11:26 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2019, 07:00 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]The overwhelming majority were not allowed to have weapons.  Most served as forced laborers, building roads, etc.  Of the few who did actually fight for the Confederacy, most either did so under duress or the misguided hope of improving their status and earning freedom.

Whitewashing history, indeed.

Thanks for proving my whitewashing point. You fail to recognize that blacks were just as ingrained into slavery as whites. They were establishing wealth on the backs of slaves just like the evil whites.

As to the civil war, consider the fact that blacks were not free as of yet and could not fight whether for the Union or the Confederacy. They simply were not able to take up arms by law. With that said, the Confederate victory at First Manassas was because of blacks within the ranks whether as a service corp or fighter. Confederate numbers dwarfed Union numbers because of blacks. Frederick Douglas was pissed that blacks would take up arms for the Confederacy, yet the Lincoln Administration strictly forbid it..."fighting the rebels with only one hand, the white one." Sadly, the Union quickly turned to "contraband" to support Union war efforts.

Frederick Douglas states in 1861, "it is now pretty well established that there are at the present moment many colored men in the Confederate army doing duty not only as cooks, servants, and laborers, but as real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets. Slaveholders accept the aid of the black man," he said. "Why should a good cause be less wisely conducted?"

If anyone accepts blacks freely fought for the Union, you would also have to admit they freely fought for the Confederacy.

Fun facts. There were large groups of light-skinned blacks that fought for the Confederacy because they felt closer to the planter class (half white blood).

Support Dem, support slavery.

There was a draft back then on both sides of the war.
Your choices, if you were drafted, were to show up at the army camp waiting for your assignment, or pay someone else to show up for you. If you didn't believe in the cause, and didn't have money, you could and theory try to run away, but, records indicate that few did. At the very very beginning of the war, there were quite a few voluntary enlistments, but that didn't last. most of those who fought during the 4-year long conflict had been drafted.
At first, only white males were drafted, but soon black males were drafted too. Again, on both sides.
So I think you're both missing the point, trying to argue that one person had more of a free choice than another about whether or not to fight the war.
The ones with free choice were the ones at the very top who made the decisions to secede or to fight secession with force.

(07-22-2019, 07:11 AM)Last42min Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not exactly sure what you are hoping to achieve with that point. Yes, there were blacks that had slaves, but the institution as a whole was decisively racist. Is there a point that Bullseye made that you're trying to counter? Maybe I missed it.

Nope. No point.

Just trying to change the conversation per usual. 

Criticize Trump? “Well Obama....”

This is the circle of life that is the political message board.

I'm not hurt or anything just so everyone knows.

It's just words..

Like if I said his ancestors were weak and allowed themselves to be slaves out of their own total and complete lack of will and weakness... who cares?

If he's hurt by something someone in 2019 says about someone in the 1800s... well.. let's just say the weakness continues on.

(07-21-2019, 01:01 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-20-2019, 12:19 AM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ]Bullseye....
The 1st Legal slave owner in the US was a black man by the name of Anthony Johnson, He was a tobacco farmer in Maryland
North Carolina's Largest slave owner in 1860 was a black man named William Ellison
In 1830 there were 3,775 FREE black people that owned 12,740 Slaves
So quit blaming the White Man for you problems

Do you even bother to research a damn thing you post?

William Ellison owned had the most slaves of any BLACK slave owners in SOUTH Carolina, meaning he owned 53 at the most, 40 when he died.

The number you cite from 1830 included free blacks who purchased the freedom of family members and were then legally considered their owner. Either way, 12,740 slaves is less than 1% of the total.

So quit trying to deflect blame from white slave owners with horse [BLEEP].

Of all slaves in America they only counted for 5% of the global african slave trade and nearly 100% of the global african slave trade were originally offered by other Africans.  The euro-centric view of slavery is actually pretty childish for an institution that traces back through all recorded history.

(07-22-2019, 07:11 AM)Last42min Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not exactly sure what you are hoping to achieve with that point. Yes, there were blacks that had slaves, but the institution as a whole was decisively racist. Is there a point that Bullseye made that you're trying to counter? Maybe I missed it.

Follow along the whole thread, and you'll see why certain points are being made. Some have come on here and decided to push one way versus the other; it's important that all sides of history are remembered, just not the convenient parts. In fact, conveniently forgetting or twisting the past have overwhelmingly aligned many blacks with the Dem party. We're seeing important parts being erased to this day and some parts being swept under.

Perhaps my response could really be applied to this little tid bit from you, "It's silly to pretend that because some blacks were slave owners that blacks as a whole were supportive of the Confederacy." It's silly to pretend they didn't. It was a vital part of the economy in the south and what was familiar. It influenced the North and movements West. I think too many times folks think slavery mirrored scenes from Django Unchained at all times. What it comes down to is if we identify or give credit to certain groups of blacks of the period, then a certain truth has to be admitted that squashes the very foundation used even today to gain or hold onto the black vote.

The main point is stopping the lumping all whites and all blacks into a box for your mental convenience. There was good and bad to be shared by all. It was history, and as raw as it was, it was normal for the period and what has influenced the new rights and wrongs of today. Time to stop looking for parts of the past to blame for lack of movement forward. What really appears disgustingly hypocritical is how generations of blacks continue to overwhelmingly vote Democrat on the same lame platforms and promises and yet nobody questions the lack of inaction. The party that smiles to your face and talks [BLEEP] behind your back. The party that started and supported and still supports institutional racism since the Great Society.

(07-22-2019, 07:15 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2019, 11:26 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks for proving my whitewashing point. You fail to recognize that blacks were just as ingrained into slavery as whites. They were establishing wealth on the backs of slaves just like the evil whites.

As to the civil war, consider the fact that blacks were not free as of yet and could not fight whether for the Union or the Confederacy. They simply were not able to take up arms by law. With that said, the Confederate victory at First Manassas was because of blacks within the ranks whether as a service corp or fighter. Confederate numbers dwarfed Union numbers because of blacks. Frederick Douglas was pissed that blacks would take up arms for the Confederacy, yet the Lincoln Administration strictly forbid it..."fighting the rebels with only one hand, the white one." Sadly, the Union quickly turned to "contraband" to support Union war efforts.

Frederick Douglas states in 1861, "it is now pretty well established that there are at the present moment many colored men in the Confederate army doing duty not only as cooks, servants, and laborers, but as real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets. Slaveholders accept the aid of the black man," he said. "Why should a good cause be less wisely conducted?"

If anyone accepts blacks freely fought for the Union, you would also have to admit they freely fought for the Confederacy.

Fun facts. There were large groups of light-skinned blacks that fought for the Confederacy because they felt closer to the planter class (half white blood).

Support Dem, support slavery.

There was a draft back then on both sides of the war.
Your choices, if you were drafted, were to show up at the army camp waiting for your assignment, or pay someone else to show up for you. If you didn't believe in the cause, and didn't have money, you could and theory try to run away, but, records indicate that few did. At the very very beginning of the war, there were quite a few voluntary enlistments, but that didn't last. most of those who fought during the 4-year long conflict had been drafted.
At first, only white males were drafted, but soon black males were drafted too. Again, on both sides.
So I think you're both missing the point, trying to argue that one person had more of a free choice than another about whether or not to fight the war.
The ones with free choice were the ones at the very top who made the decisions to secede or to fight secession with force.

Not my point exactly, but pretty close. There were tough choices to be made for economic purposes by both blacks and whites and we can't shift all of the blame to one race. It was more of a class issue. That gets overlooked when we try to apply lawful and social norms of today to a period that was much different. But, I'm in no way downplaying slavery as a whole and can't pretend I understand how it felt from either side.

---

(07-22-2019, 07:37 AM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-22-2019, 07:11 AM)Last42min Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not exactly sure what you are hoping to achieve with that point. Yes, there were blacks that had slaves, but the institution as a whole was decisively racist. Is there a point that Bullseye made that you're trying to counter? Maybe I missed it.

Nope. No point.

Just trying to change the conversation per usual. 

Criticize Trump? “Well Obama....”

This is the circle of life that is the political message board.

You don't have to respond, especially if you have nothing to offer the discussion. This part of the board exists for discourse and your free to stand on the sidelines.

Can someone please explain to me the sense of engaging in protracted debate which applies contemporary standards to historical mores? What is to be gained?