canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Wonder when Legion Fag and Tranny Leon are going to find a Christian bakery to demand a cake for their unnatural queer union
tubman replaces jackson
- Thread starter tsuke
- Start date
Leon's your bitch and a fuckstick is what you are.
No one's head is exploding because Aunt Jemima is going on the $20. If you don't agree, that's too bad.
Leon or christie will comfort you.
I bathe in his tears, with bubble bath!
Why would you post a picture of your mother on here?
You are a blatant liar baldy!
What's that shoe shine BOY?
CFM
Nice toe tapper burn!
CFM
I told you boy that I can use two $10 as easy as I can use a $20. If you want to have something that looks like monopoly money with a picture of Aunt Jemima on it, go for it.
Seems your head is exploding because someone doesn't agree with you. Maybe you can get Troll to comfort you after he's done with christiefan.
Legion Troll
A fine upstanding poster
When it comes to Native American history, Jackson ranks right up there with the worst genocidal tyrants.
Because white Southerners in the early 19th century craved the land inhabited by native tribes like the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Seminole, Creek and Cherokee, they needed the government to expel the original inhabitants so they could seize the property for themselves.
Although the law only permitted voluntary and peaceful removals of natives from their land, Jackson ignored the law (as well as the Supreme Court itself) and forcibly expelled the Choctaws and Creeks from their ancestral home.
Thousands of them died during the brutal journey westward, prompting them to refer to their exodus as the “Trail of Tears.”
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/21/why_andrew_jackson_never_should_have_been_on_the_20_to_begin_with/
Because white Southerners in the early 19th century craved the land inhabited by native tribes like the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Seminole, Creek and Cherokee, they needed the government to expel the original inhabitants so they could seize the property for themselves.
Although the law only permitted voluntary and peaceful removals of natives from their land, Jackson ignored the law (as well as the Supreme Court itself) and forcibly expelled the Choctaws and Creeks from their ancestral home.
Thousands of them died during the brutal journey westward, prompting them to refer to their exodus as the “Trail of Tears.”
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/21/why_andrew_jackson_never_should_have_been_on_the_20_to_begin_with/
Are you, Leon, The Dude, christiefan, and evince trying to create your own "trail" with your constant bitching and whining? You sure cry like a bunch of bitches.
Really, because its the Republicans here who argue that South was justified in its fight against "northern aggression".
Do you believe the colonists were justified in their fight during the Revolutionary War?
You are correct, the Democrats have tried to whitewash their racist past. It is however the past, the Republicans (not all) are trying to whitewash their racist present.
The modern Republican has even gone so far as to have taken up the Democrat argument about the Civil War, and abandon the Republican argument.
Same type of overbearing government as the South dealt with before the Civil War.
Still made your ancestors were slaves.
No, very different. The South had representation in Congress. The South was not separated from a Mother Government by an ocean at a time when intercourse between such geography was difficult, expensive and time consuming.
The South had a right to operate however it chose, it chose a plantation system with the production of raw goods for exportation. The difference is that the South CHOSE! In the English Colonial system the Colonies did not chose.
Regardless, even if your point were true... MY point is still true, The modern Republican is in stark Contrast to the Republican Party of Harriet Tubman. In fact your argument above proves that.
All people are a mix of good and bad, being a slave-owner does not take away from their political philosophies.
My Great-Great Grandfather owned lots of slaves, I have a receipt of sale. It does not make him 100% evil.
christiefan915
Catalyst
My point is true. It's not a matter of IF.
Great Britain didn't have Mother Government representatives in the colonies.
The difference is . . . there isn't one. The colonists fought an overbearing government going beyond it's authority and so did the South. Had you live in the latter 1700's, you would have been a Loyalist based on your desire for an overbearing national government doing things beyond what it has the authority to do. You do the very same thing today with the current federal government.