---

I try to stop but everytime the guy starts dissecting my posts,,,  

He's got some sort of homo obsession on me I bet.  

But if you want to say something not one stopping you man.

---

HOMO OBSESSION -- funny  

you 2 keep at it - I wont stop ya.

-------
[If you don't like me, too bad]
"The amount of fail on THEFORUM.COM is reaching epic proportions." - hughnon

---

I know that was not the only motivation going on with slavery. And competition is often related to greed.

---

And competition may be related to greed but many times is related to just not wanting to run out of business.

---

You can't read the word MOST? Yep just what I thought.

---

And the Amerinds of America weren't even 1/2 as bad as the ones in South and Central America.

But, then again - compare the Amerind achievement to European...

---

Prove it was the "vast majority of people" in the whole United States.

---

If they loved them so much don't you think they would've had a better past?

---

Prove that those who wanted blacks around wee a very small minority.

---

Do you have an estimate?

---

That you are full of fail.

---

---

Sure. Gassing a bunch of jews was just a job.

---

---

If he was just the employee how did he make so much money? And why "of course"/ If he had some sdistate for selling human beings he would not have done it.

But he thought their were "not human" right? So he could wash his hands off that. Yep just what I thought.

---

And do you really think Whites weren't sold as slaves either?

---

Interesting how you avoided answering that.

---

---

Pontius Pilate hasd the same reasoning

---

---

Didn't you say he did?

---

---

Which is exaclty what I posted thanks for repeating the obvious. Excpet that YOU argued that if they did not have slaves they would starve or be poor.

That slavery was NEEDED for ppl to survive and make a living,

Were all whites who had no slaves poor in the south?

---

But, if you didn't have a plantation and worked on something else you probably wouldn't need slaves.

---

They wanted to become rich and powerful. Prett much defines greed yeah.

And why the RIGHT path?

---

And the right path = the way to do it.

---

Also defines greed yep.

---

---

If you ar  saying that slaving owning was ALSO BAD for the whites who did not own slaves then I agree.

Slavery made EVERYONE suffer: blacks AS WELL poor whites.

It committed a grave injustivce to BOTH black and other whites.

When whites from the south start realizing this maybe there will be more understanding across the board.

---

---

I never said greed couldn't exist - but I said that it's not the ONLY factor.

---

---

And competition may be related to greed but many times is related to just not wanting to run out of business.

---

Its one thing to have 3 or 4 slaves for your own personal use. Its totally another when you use a whole gang to make huge profits on the back of 50 people.

---

But, then again - compare the Amerind achievement to European...

---

---

---

Prove it was the "vast majority of people"in the whole United States.

---

KR nonsequitur

---

---

---

Prove that those who wanted blacks around wee a very small minority.

---

How many do you really think were abolitionists?

Do you have an estimate?

---

---

---

Sure. Gassing a bunch of jews was just a job.

---

Well, someone wasn't doing their job!

---

---

But he thought their were "not human" right? So he could wash his hands off that.

---

Yep your ancestor should went along fine with that law. I guess the apple don't fall far from the tree

---

And do you really think Whites weren't sold as slaves either?

---

Whites were slaves but whites were not considered 3/5 of Asians or Amerindians now were they? They were not automatically considered slaves just because of thir race. Laws were not changed around just to make sure whites would become slaves and stayed slaves. Whites had the MEANS to escape slavery by paying their debts and converting.

BLacks used to be treated more fairly BEFORE the slave laws of the 19th century. Sure blacks were taken as slaves from the start but those who had managed to pay their debts or convert became freedmen long before the civil war. When the Slave laws passed it was OVER.

Now I ask you WHY WERE THE LAWS CHANGED JUST TO MAKE SURE blacks became slaves and stayed slave?
 

---

Well it's a statement and wasn't a question - how do you answer a statement?

---

---

I didn't say such bullshit!

---

---

It's not greed if you're trying to live.
Slaves didn't have to make money - they just had to work.
If everyone around you has slaves and puts out 10x more food - you are going to go out of business or find some nice workers.

---

---

But, if you didn't have a plantation and worked on something else you probably wouldn't need slaves.

---

---

Rich and powerful? Maybe SOME did - but not all.

---

Oh you lost the link and the quote

Here

---

Of all 1,515,605 families in the 15 slave states, 393,967 held slaves (roughly one in four),[6] amounting to 8% of all American families.[7] Most slaveholding households, however, had only a few slaves. The majority of slaves were held by planters, defined by historians as those who held 20 or more slaves

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States

---

Some just wanted money for their families.

---

Most families only had a few slaves. But the MAJORITY of slaves were owned by greedy plantation owners. it's funny you defend them.

---

And the right path = the way to do it.

---

---

No it doesn't. Wealth is not synonymous with greed.

---

---

Understanding for what?

---

Slavery made EVERYONE suffer: blacks AS WELL poor whites.

---

They aren't enslaving people anymore and I doubt they want to.

---

i dont think this topic is going away anytime soon.

my reason: kidd rune and jakelong HAVE OPEN MINDS about this issue.

just as long as they stay in check - which i am sure they are.  

-------
[If you don't like me, too bad]
"The amount of fail on THEFORUM.COM is reaching epic proportions." - hughnon

---

Did I say it was?

---

---

When it comes to making a large plantation with more than 50 slaves into a large scale business its pretty much greed yeah.

Its one thing to have 3 or 4 slaves for your own personal use. Its totally another when you use a whole gang to make huge profits on the back of 50 people.

---

---

Why should I? They were not motivated by as much greed as the Europeans. They only used a few slaves as part of prisoners of wars instead on enslaving whole populations and whole tribes.

---

And, again, greed and slavery aren't the same thing.

And it's not like the Amerinds in North America were capable of taking as many slaves as the Europeans.

---

I put my question in large print because apparently you can't read.

---

---

I am asking you. You made the claim. Back it up.

---

Do you know how many people were abolitionists?

---

Not sure what that BS means.

---

---

Which proves that the ONLY way to make surethey could do this is to PASS a NEW LAW saying that black are not human.. And yeah that's racism.

Yep your ancestor should went along fine with that law. I guess the apple don't fall far from the tree

---

---

Re-read my posts and you know what I said on the topic.

Whites were slaves but whites were not considered 3/5 of Asians or Amerindians now were they? They were not automatically considered slaves just because of thir race. Laws were not changed around just to make sure whites would become slaves and stayed slaves. Whites had the MEANS to escape slavery by paying their debts and converting.

BLacks used to be treated more fairly BEFORE the slave laws of the 19th century. Sure blacks were taken as slaves from the start but those who had managed to pay their debts or convert became freedmen long before the civil war. When the Slave laws passed it was OVER.

Now I ask you WHY WERE THE LAWS CHANGED JUST TO MAKE SURE blacks became slaves and stayed slave?

---

---

Then why did you quote it and put in a statement that had nothing to do with it.

---

---

You sure did You said they were needed to survive and if whites didn't have slaves they would "impoverished"
You never mentioned that. You said it was needed for food.

---

---

Re-read the article on WHO owned slaves and why and what happened to those ppl/ Go head it is on this thread.

Oh you lost the link and the quote

Here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States

---

---

Again an assfact without eveidence of proof. Just some general BS throw out there to make believe.

Most families only had a few slaves. But the MAJORITY of slaves were owned by greedy plantation owners. it's funny you defend them.

---

Be sure to have it fit the definition of greed 100% and not have any error in your argument.

Or admit your fail.

---

The ONLY way to do it? The BEST way to do it? The ONLY way they could think of? Be specific.

---

---

Wealth obtained on the back of the unpaid and forced  labor of others = Greed,

---

That isn't the only explanation.

---

Understanding between people. But yeah you don't seem to know much about that.

Slavery made EVERYONE suffer: blacks AS WELL poor whites.

---

---

But the consequences of slavery for the social and ecomincs of blacks is still an issue.

---

---

That one other guy did and I was arguing with him and you just jumped in.

---

But you do that alot too so you can't criiticize.

---

When you want money and everyone else around you has large plantations - you have to have one too to compete.

---

---

Actually - when they defeated a tribe they took all the able bodied as slaves.

---

---

And, again, greed and slavery aren't the same thing.

---

It's funny you can't see that.

---

And it's not like the Amerinds in North America were capable of taking as many slaves as the Europeans.

---

---

If more people wanted them free and equal they would have been earlier.

---

As I said many times but you fail to understand most blacks slaves were able to become FREE with the earlier laws BEFORE the 19th century.  

---

I'm just seeing if you have any idea about how many...

---

---

Do you know how many people were abolitionists?

---

---

Speak English much?

---

---

You said that it was somebodies job to gas Jews.
I said somebody didn't do their job.

---

If you can't tell the difference go back and study English.

(And "speak English much" is pig English)

---

My proof is that there hasn't been 1 person with undeniable proof of them being gassed - much less millions.

---

Ask judges how they really prove that a burned victim was really murdered and stabbed first. They do it all the time.

---

I think you just replied to your own comment.

---

---

I think you have it mixed up. They didn't call them non-human to make slavery "Better" but they called them subhuman because they THOUGHT they were.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_compromise

The 3/5 law was purely meant for tax purposes and population counting. It had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with how they considered slaves.

Those OPPOSED to slavery did NOT want to count the slaves AT ALL. Does that mean they thought slaves were absolutely NOT human?  

-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP

I'm fine with it, I don't care too much for white people, epsecially if they think like you...kidd runne.

---

Whites segregate themselves from nonwhites all the time in my school. You don't need a freakin white country to seperate your people, your people are already segregating themselves.

I'm fine with it, I don't care too much for white people, epsecially if they think like you...kidd runne.

---

It's funny how they like to make it sounds its nonwhites who do that but white flight is PROOF some whites are still into segragating.

-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP