Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I think that the bush family is the worst plague to hit this country polio. They have their hands deep into arabian oil money and no one seems to pay attetion to it. For christ's sake they have been business partners with the bin ladens since the late 70s. They fixed the florida election with the help of a sibling and a hired private company to make sure no felons got to vote. Kennith lay was one of the main contributors the the bush jr. election and he and fellow supporters got to write up the entirely voluntary clean air bill, and three days into bush's presidentcy had a bill passed putting no cap on how much a company could charge for energy supplies. lets face it Bush is a corprate wet dream.

O and.

Anyone remeber what they called the iraq war first

O-peration
I-raqi
L-liberation

isn't that crazy?ha.

At 6/24/07 01:11 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/24/07 01:07 AM, Nitroglys wrote:

stalemate.

Bullshit.

The only source for your's is ABC/Washington Times.

Mine is almost every single friggin' major media outlet (and then some), including ABC.

Then there's the source Tal-con (grammar) posted with Congress being at a mere 14%.

Well you can't blame the dems for that. they didnt have control when we went to war. they've had it for under a year. they have done to little to be concluded as such. Bush has been in office for 8 years and we've seen his approval ratting drop continuly over the years.

At 6/22/07 09:19 PM, rotciv351 wrote: in some ways it does and in some ways it doesnt i mean they seperated from the union to keep slavery but it isnt because the flag itself has no representation of slavery on it.

No it doesnt have a picture of a hanging black man but that doesnt mean the confederacy never did it. The fact is that the confederacy secieded to keep their salvery, and their flag represents that. What do you think of first when you see the flag?

At 6/23/07 10:05 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/23/07 09:39 PM, Nitroglys wrote:

I dont know where you get your stats but Bush's is more like 30ish on avg. and the congress' is like 45 . its a small lead but its a lead. and i was leaning toward the republicans getting us into a trillion dollar pointless war.

Bush
Congress

Check, and Mate. Mother fucker (Love that phrase)

Fuck it says it right on one of your sources the same exact thing that i said. it just depends on how red your source is.

stalemate.

At 6/23/07 09:29 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/23/07 09:27 PM, Nitroglys wrote:

Ya, im so proud of the repulican party right now.

Bush Approval: 32%
Democrat controlled congress: 25.2%

I think I made my point.

I dont know where you get your stats but Bush's is more like 30ish on avg. and the congress' is like 45 . its a small lead but its a lead. and i was leaning toward the republicans getting us into a trillion dollar pointless war.

At 6/23/07 09:20 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/23/07 08:24 PM, emmytee wrote:

For spawning this stupid little cunt, fuck America

For spawning:
- liberals
-leftists
-democrats
-hippies
-communists
-conspiracy theorists
-Socialists

Fuck America.

Ya, im so proud of the repulican party right now.

The jews have had it bad, yes. but giving them part of the middle east beacuse of what happened in world war 2. please. its maddness. I think we were just securing our own intrests there. maybe having a country actually on our side in the middle east. it just doesnt add up as to why we had to go there of all places to give them their repereations. why not part of germany.

At 6/22/07 03:40 PM, scorchin-hot wrote:

At 6/21/07 11:35 PM, Nitroglys wrote:

At 6/21/07 11:29 PM, scorchin-hot wrote:

Ya im sure all the people in ghettos are blinded by the benifits. they are so happy to be where they are and only getting a 900 dollars a month,

better than everybody $16 dollars a month.

what are you talking about? if a govt has enough money to put 50 bill every couple of months to a pointless war they can afford to properly pay the working man. especially if they own industries. please take lack of knowlege else where.

The thing is the government is in trilions of dollars in debt and I was actually reffering to cuba. Don't say I have a lack of knowledge when you decide to ignore history. What makes you think that a government that is already corrupt in democracy wouldn't take advantage of communism?

Ya, a human would take advantage of the fact. but if it was a true communist country im sure we could all be above middle class. please read the topic. in theory it could work.

At 6/22/07 12:43 AM, TheloniousMONK wrote:

Your missing what im trying to debate. in theory communism could work. I know very well that we will never see it happen due to the human element of greed, but on paper communism would take care of plenty of problems. education, healthcare, poverty all of them can be dealt with using communism. Yes you lose the ability to get a higher pay than the next guy and the incredibly hard working people that strive for that extra dollar would be gone, but at what benifit. you see the good side of capitalism. people trying and achieving in soceity and that feels great to the people that can do it. but what about the people that can't the people stuck working a 9-5 job going no where and they still can't provide entirely for their family. the people who can't get a job beacuse its so competitive. the people who get steped on and pushed down into the gutter. These are the people we need to think of. it is selfish not to. it is selfish to say "come on you bum, get a damn job." maybe they can, but maybe the can't. maybe they are so far down the road of mal-education and in that vicious circle of drug child and spouse abuse that plauges the lower class. communism can prevent this from happening. sending kids to school on the gov't's dime. Dont try and say i'm wanting a free ride beacuse its not a lazy thing its a poor thing. maybe if we gave people some hope a gangbanger wouldnt have to steal to provide for his family. sure they have a better standard of living then people in ethiopia, but the standard of living is so low there anyway you cant possibly compare it to that. the fact is that there are people are starving in our country. there will always be people needing a job, and jobs to fit the peoples qualifactations. and sure money isnt the problem with soceity. its what people will do for it. sure it might help drive an industry, but people will kill for it. dont you see that is a problem. im not saying we would give money to the poor, just give them oppurtunity. something their not used to. you can't say that people don't get left behind in this "land of oppurtunity" it happens everyday. You think there aren't people who can't afford education for their kid. That alone can put a kid so far behind the 8-ball he can't get out. if you want a decent job anymore you need a college education. Denying that is wrong to do to any child. they don't diserive that. And why should you not invent something if you can't profit off of it. if it helps the common man you shouldn't be so selfish. You would have enough to provide why should you want anymore. and if you wanted to be a rockstar i guess you would have to be passionate enough to do it alongside your job. maybe if you got successful enough the gov't could pay for your tour. all these minute details could be hammered out. And im sry that i got the gov't ownership of industry wrong. but it doesnt change the fact that their will be a market for "stuff" we need to spend our money on. and as long as their is a market for it there will need to be a place of business for it, thus a need for a skyscraper. just beacuse there is no inscentive to achieve doesnt mean no one would work. it would slow down the people who would make less but i bet it would inspire thouse who made more. your just too selfish. i would work just as hard to help push soceity forward. i bet scientist dont even care as long as they have their name on it. which im sure they would it wouldnt say "so-and-so nation discovered". Communism can work. if humans wouldnt be so slefish. but too bad. it was a good thought.

At 6/21/07 11:29 PM, scorchin-hot wrote:

Ya im sure all the people in ghettos are blinded by the benifits. they are so happy to be where they are and only getting a 900 dollars a month,

better than everybody $16 dollars a month.

what are you talking about? if a govt has enough money to put 50 bill every couple of months to a pointless war they can afford to properly pay the working man. especially if they own industries. please take lack of knowlege else where.

At 6/21/07 09:45 PM, TheloniousMONK wrote:

At 6/21/07 08:19 PM, Nitroglys wrote: sure you lose the ability to achieve

I have no idea what this is even supposed to mean, but it sure does not sound good to me.

Hhhhmmm i wonder who made the point about people not being able to ACHIEVE in society.

but you dont lose choice in your career you just get paid the same as everyone else.

Oh really? Who is going to clean the sewers or work in the landfill? How about flipping burgers at McGovernment's? Are YOU going to be the one to do these by choice? I know when I fill out my application for my weekly government handout that I will be putting down garage band guitarist!

Hell i would work anywhere as long as i could bring home enough to feed the family. the only reason we see these jobs as lesser is beacuse of their pay. So your saying that without a capitalistic soceity their will be nothing to tell people to quit there dreams and settle with the meanial. Im sry to dissapoint but im sure nothing un-productive would be enforced. remeber there will always be people looking for a job. and im sure they will be happy, as i said before, as long as they can provide for their family.

Thats the problem with people they are so worried about getting more money than people they can't just work to work.

Haha. That's not the problem, it's why our species is still alive.

Maybe beacuse its the only thing we've ever known. think about all we have ever had is a classed society with people accelling and people down in the gutter. Maybe a change would be good. As i said the strive for money and that is the problem. Beacuse in the strive for money people forget about everyone else.

They are just so blinded by the capitalist way of life.

Blinded by the benefits, right?

Ya im sure all the people in ghettos are blinded by the benifits. they are so happy to be where they are and only getting a 900 dollars a month, getting shot down for a good job beacuse they couldnt afford to go to college. all this could change they could have a decent house, go to school for free, and not be part of a horrible circle of hood life.

And whos to say that your personal works of art or inventions aren't taken by the next greedier man who for his own persoanal ambition takes it and sells it.

http://www.copyright.gov/

so, although it is possible, you think that a person with an invention will start production, make a store to sell his idea, and grow with need. when just as easily some huge corporation can make a knock-off of it and sell it in their wal-mart and if it comes to a court case probably get it won.

THAT is whats wrong with the capitalistic soceity. Personal ambition is stepping on the guy below you to make that extra dollar. not helping him up when hes down like in communism. The economic market is the problem. Maybe if we built skyscrapers for the better of humanity we would all be able to stay in one.

Who would waste their time building skyscrapers for the better(ment) of humanity when we could all be garage band ROCKSTARS, leaving your house once a week to walk down to the welfare office? You only live so long afterall, and if everyone's time is worth the same amount of money no matter what they are doing then hell why not?

Not everyone is gonna be a rockstar. and you'll need to have some type of job. all of this can be sorted out by the people handing out the money. and to my last recolection i dont recall recieving a paycheck for being a rockstar. sounds like you would just have to persuade the common person to spend their money on your album. As i said before there will always be people looking for a job and a job to fit the persons quailfactions.

Maybe there would be no one in front of the skyscraper begging for money. maybe if someone got hurt while building the skyscraper they wouldn't have to worry about some huge hospital bill.

Yep. Life sucks when you suck. All the more incentive to stop sucking.

Yup. tell that to the black guy who couldnt get a job beacuse he is black. he'll just have to stop being black. or the bum who couldnt afford an education. come on god damnit get on your feet you peice of shit.

Maybe the janitor that works in the skyscraper would be able to provide for his family just as much as the CEO of the company skyscraper.

If that were true then the skyscraper would never have existed in the first place and the janitor would have no job at all. Then again, I guess this is what you pinkos really want afterall: a free ride and someone else to foot the bill.

I dont know how having a job is a free ride. as long as there is a need for a skyscraper there will be someone to build it, some one to run it, and someone to clean it. People need to still buy stuff from companies and those companies need skyscrapers.

Its these selfless qualites that make communism so great. maybe thats why i would be so quick for a change from homelessness, a change from giant companies controlling everything we buy and stepping on the little guy, a change for the better.

You are really fortunate that most of the world is full of people like me that care too much to let you fools actually try this. I could just see this silly idealism flowing out of you with every tear after your entire family starves to death and all the shitty music you enjoy is just telling you to kill yourself anyway. It may not happen in a year, or five, or ten. Hell, your little dream society might actually last a few decades. But you can only live on borrowed wealth for so long, and after you have cashed the last check that all the greedy fortune-seeking CEOs wrote for you before they went extinct you might finally understand the evil that you so passionately support.

Yes lets look back at all the good capitalism has brought us. first you see the skyscrapers then you see the ghettos around it. with every person that succedds there are 5 who dont. 5 who get to scrap by flipping burgers providing for their 4 children. I think you just can't get over the fact that everyone can be provided for in communism. No one has to go hungry. as long as the gears turn money can be made and dinners can be served. too bad for those kids in the ghetto with nothing in their stomachs.

O and appluase on the creative? little oppinon on me and my pesonal life. you really missed the head of the nail and hit your own thumb.

At 6/21/07 05:53 PM, TheloniousMONK wrote:

At 6/21/07 12:32 PM, Nitroglys wrote: i want you to look at marx's theories i posted before. no where does he ever mention fascism. The theory of communism and what has happend in a communist state before are completly different.

I really do not need a lesson, not from Marx and especially not from you. Nothing I have mentioned is related to anything but the economic system of Communism. Without a sense of property, you, as an individual, cease to exist. Your basic freedom to choosing who to engage in business relations with and who to build economic partnerships with is lost. Do you understand what this means? Even your own thoughts do not belong to you. If you invent something, it is not yours. It you create art, it is not yours. Your ambition and your goals are not yours. You are no longer an individual. And keep in mind, man did not leave their caves and erect skyscrapers so that the community would be bettered. Man does things for his own glory, and hispersonal ambition serves the common good. Through trading value for value mutual prosperity is achieved. These are the principles that make the economic market so powerful, so what makes you so afraid that you would want to destroy this?

Well maybe you should take a lesson before you go and embarass yourslef. sure you lose the ability to achieve, but you dont lose choice in your career you just get paid the same as everyone else. Thats the problem with people they are so worried about getting more money than people they can't just work to work. They are just so blinded by the capitalist way of life. And whos to say that your personal works of art or inventions aren't taken by the next greedier man who for his own persoanal ambition takes it and sells it. THAT is whats wrong with the capitalistic soceity. Personal ambition is stepping on the guy below you to make that extra dollar. not helping him up when hes down like in communism. The economic market is the problem. Maybe if we built skyscrapers for the better of humanity we would all be able to stay in one. Maybe there would be no one in front of the skyscraper begging for money. maybe if someone got hurt while building the skyscraper they wouldn't have to worry about some huge hospital bill. Maybe the janitor that works in the skyscraper would be able to provide for his family just as much as the CEO of the company skyscraper. Its these selfless qualites that make communism so great. maybe thats why i would be so quick for a change from homelessness, a change from giant companies controlling everything we buy and stepping on the little guy, a change for the better.

At 6/21/07 01:42 PM, Elfer wrote: Does nobody understand that communism is an economic policy rather than a social one?

All of those things were meant in a purely economic and business sense. It seemed kind of obvious, actually.

At 6/20/07 11:49 PM, EvilerBowser1001 wrote:

At 6/20/07 10:08 PM, altanese-mistress wrote:

... the biggest was who should have more power; the the federal government or the state governments?

This also came up during the civil rights movment...and the feds apparently trumped the locals...Mabye

sry for the triple post but i had to add this. In Montana they allow medical marijuana even though it is outlawed federally. so what happens is you sign up to par-take and have your name on a list so the gov't can bust you. it happend to some old lady with cancer.

Sure rewarding through a classes society, sounds like capitalism to me. but in communism there is no class, there is no one living out on the streets, no one getting no care in a hospital beacuse they cant pay. It just depends on how selfish you are wether or not you would support a communist gov't.

At 6/21/07 12:42 PM, K-RadPie wrote: People only want communism because they are afraid of hard work, afraid of freedom, and afraid of their humanity.

No. people want communism beacuse they are tired of poverty, classes, and lack of common healthcare. I hate when people don't look at the theory of communism. Read it, it has alot of positives. Just people take advantage of it.

At 6/21/07 02:56 AM, TheloniousMONK wrote:

At 6/21/07 02:08 AM, Nitroglys wrote: fascism is merely a tool for strugling communist countries. the topic is about true communism. and in true communism everyone is working for the better of the country so all freedoms are granted.

Like hell. All of the freedoms I mentioned before, the very ones that make you an individual, are forfeited for the good of the collective.

i want you to look at marx's theories i posted before. no where does he ever mention fascism. The theory of communism and what has happend in a communist state before are completly different.

At 6/21/07 02:40 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/21/07 02:25 AM, Nitroglys wrote:

Who knows i bet feds come knocking on my door tommorow beacuse of this post. kinda like that old guy at the gym from farenhight 911.

You're using fahrenheit 9/11?

Hahaha....hahahaha!

you still can't change the fact that there are plenty of people at gitmo for no reason. and that the gov't is invaiding our privacy and embaraessing plenty of decent americans ever since the patriot act.

At 6/21/07 02:16 AM, JudgeDredd wrote:

At 6/21/07 12:52 AM, Nitroglys wrote: we have the freedom of speech to hate the gov't, and we have the freedom of assembly ...but it is illegal to assemable to overthrow the gov't. hhhhmmmmm....

you have the right to a lawyer, and are innocent until proven guilty ...unless you're presumed to be a terrorist and sent by US military to a country of their choosing where human-rights arn't enforced. hhhhmmmmm...

O please. i have no faith in our legal system especially when it comes to anything close to gitmo. i wonder how many innocent people are there? Who knows i bet feds come knocking on my door tommorow beacuse of this post. kinda like that old guy at the gym from farenhight 911.

At 6/21/07 01:37 AM, TheloniousMONK wrote: You are all fools. What about sacrificing the things that make you individuals--ambition, goals, property, both intellectual and physical, and most of all your freedom to engage in relationships and partnerships voluntarily, in other words, your free will--turns you all on so much? Are you really that weak or insecure that you fear freedom?

fascism is merely a tool for strugling communist countries. the topic is about true communism. and in true communism everyone is working for the better of the country so all freedoms are granted.

sry for the double post but i always like marx's ecomnomic theories. it gives me hope. false hope but hope. http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyofrelig ion/a/marx.htm

o and what about the whole being a communist or a Communist. thats funny shit.

i dont like this. when they cave to stuff like this it just leads to problems. like when they outlawed christmas in some schools. it just takes away from the children. what kinda pussies are gunna come out of that school. ha

communism would be great. if we could take out the human element. no communist gov't got beyone the socialist/dictator phase. beacuse in true communism the need for gov't would slowly disentegrate.

we have the freedom of speech to hate the gov't. and we have the freedom of assembly. and the founding fathers gave us the right to overthrow the gov't if it gets too much out of our liking.but it is illegal to assemable to overthrow the gov't. hhhhmmmmm....

At 6/20/07 10:08 PM, altanese-mistress wrote:

At 6/20/07 12:00 PM, Werewolf91 wrote: What were some of those reasons? I usually only hear about slavery or the South being pissed that Lincoln could get elected with virtually no southern votes.

Taxes, import tariffs, and representation in Congress are the other big reasons, but the biggest was who should have more power; the the federal government or the state governments?

the southern rally call was if lincoln is elected we secciede, beacuse of his party abolisiontist qualites.

so taxes, taxes, and the point ive been making about keeping the slave to free states equal for equal representation in congress. all of these have to do with the south's right to own slaves. what were the taxes on?"The 1862 law also made important reforms to the Federal income tax that presaged important features of the current tax. For example, a two-tiered rate structure was enacted, with taxable incomes up to $10,000 taxed at a 3 percent rate and higher incomes taxed at 5 percent."
why were they mad about representaion? so they could keep their slaves. it all revolves around the simple fact that the south had no intention of abolishing slavery.

At 6/17/07 07:55 PM, altanese-mistress wrote:

It was ending, yes; very very slowly. But it would have never gone away completly until the early twentieth century when all those nifty new agrarian technologies came about.

ya, which is why the civil war was good. the south was in need of changes. but the slow abolishment by the states gov't was a good way to keep from a pre-emptive seccession by the south. with that much of an uneven slave:free states the north would of deffinetly lost. so we needed that time so as many states could abolish slavery.

the south was just so helpless without slaves they economically couldnt give them up. they did just give them up but they took steps.

And look what came became of it.

ya, the north won. it was all carefully orcestrated. The civil war didnt just happen. it was on the horizon for a while.

a list of pointless random facts(whered this come from)
and that just a little there a whole another page

What does any of that have to do with anything?

it was my rebutal to you saying "Well if they hated it so much they should have just outlawed it outright. They didn't do it because they didn't care." they obviously cared enough to outlaw as soon as 1777.

it was a history lesson to someone else. sry you couldnt pick up on that.

Oh, I knew. But that doesn't change the fact that you were wrong, and I just had to point out the flaws in your argument.

ok, im sry. i was focused on the true point of my arugement.

it was called a comprimise. another piece of legislation to keep us out of civil war.

Worked like a charm, didn't it? What with that era of peace and goodwill in the 1860s

ya, the 1860s instead of a war right after the revolution. or the war of 1812 where we would of been so ready for a full scale attack on half of the known united states. im sry we didnt have bush back then to head us full steam into war.

Historical defintion of apprentice-. a person legally bound through indenture to a master craftsman in order to learn a trade.

Why not just give the dictionary.com link instead of making it seem like you knew?

beacuse i did know what it meant. i just had to enlighten you with the actual definition. uut to make you happy-link

there was no pay and he might have to be a servant for years with no pay just housing and food.

You fail to see the difference: An apprentice works as an assistant to learn a craft. An indentured servent works to pay off debts. Slavery is a whole other matter, and while true it didn't appear in full-force until later on in the colonies, it's predecessor was close enough since niether were in it to learn.

o. what happend to indentured servants being so close to slavery. yes it was the predisesor. but slavery was around before that. so why didnt they use them from the start. beacuse they didnt need to. a blacksmith doesnt need a slave merely a apprentice to help around.

Landowners in the south took to slavery much more than people in the north. Know why? Beacuse the south was an agricultural country. invloving much more manual labor than jobs in the industrial north. there was an influx of slavery IN THE SOUTH.

Yeah, no shit. Your point?

my point is that the only place where slavery was on the rise was in the south. not flourishing in the northen states.

No it doesnt make it right, the north was just trying to hold their breath and maybe slavery would go away. it obviously didnt and the south secieded(something the north was trying to avoid, hints all the comprimises and balancing of slave and free states.)

And there ya go. Your argument defending the North falls apart because in the end it didn't work.

ya 14 states abolishing slavery. sounds like it didnt work. as i said before we used to avoid wars. trying to battle things out in congress where it should be done.

Hhhmmm the south secieded beacuse the north was becoming increasingly anti-slavery. the north went to war with them beacuse they secieded. sounds like a war over slavery to start with.

The South seceded from the Union for several reasons, only one of which was over slavery. To fram the war as morally just for the North, Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation to make it into a war over slavery; in truth the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave. It was laws implemented after the war that did away with slavery, and even those were heavily debated in the North.

"During the presidential election of 1860, Southern leaders told the South to secede from the Union if Lincoln were to win the election because they believed Lincoln was an abolitionist."link

sounds like a war over slavery to me. yes the emancipation proclamation didnt free a slave, but only beacuse it, in the eyes of the american gov't, freed all of the slaves "held by states in rebbelion against the United States". so if you dont get that it freed slaves in the south but beacuse the south wasnt part of the united states the legeslation was words, but they were forceful words.

At 6/17/07 06:47 PM, animehater wrote: I just wish you fuckers who want to end it so badly actually did something. Not holding hands and singing bullshit, but actually getting some AKs via the black market and cross through the border from chad.

Yeah, that was a totally sensiable post. Ive actually thought about eco-terrorism on things like hummer dealerships, wal-marts etc. but i cant say if i was over there i wouldnt do it. that would feel really cool to help the needy by killing. it would make me feel warm and fuzzy inside as the 5.56 pierced their scull.

At 6/17/07 02:17 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 6/16/07 11:00 PM, Nitroglys wrote: i applaude you for your ignorance cellardoor.

Oh shut up.

I searched basically the whole area and saw nothing but desert and bushes. Wanting to actually see what is going on is not ignorance. I like to KNOW things, I'm sorry if that offends morons like you who are afraid to see reality.

If you really wanted to actually see you just needed to click a link over to images. theres plenty of bloodshed there you can whack off to. and i appluade you once again for your ignorance of the tread itself.

but i thought everyone would like to know about the new john lennon out. it is called instant karma and all of the proceeds are goin to help darfur. seems like someone cares.

At 6/17/07 04:11 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Preventing one death makes gun control entirely worth it, is my fundamental view.

exactly, too many rednecks take their guns over peoples lives. thats pretty sick.

At 6/17/07 03:03 PM, altanese-mistress wrote:

At 6/17/07 02:11 PM, Nitroglys wrote: ya but havent you heard that you dont have to practice what you preach. i know it sounds hypocritical but they knew that slavery would die out it just took alot longer.

Well if they hated it so much they should have just outlawed it outright. They didn't do it because they didn't care. Remember that this is an era where even the abolitionists considered the white race to be superior.

these are smart people. sure they had slaves and they werent exactly john brown when it comes to slavery, but they knew that slavery would end as it was doing before the cotton gin. the south was just so helpless without slaves they economically couldnt give them up. they did just give them up but they took steps.

1777-Vermont first colony to abolish slavery
1780- Pennsilvania and Massachusetts adopt a law that gradually emancipates slaves. Delaware prohibits the importation of slaves.
1783-maryland prohibits slave importation
1784-Connecticut and Rhode Island adopt the same law as pennsilvania. North carolina prohibits importation of slaves.
1785-New York adopts the gradual emancipation law, prohibits slave importation, and allows slave owners to free their slaves without posting a bond.
1787-The Northwest Ordinance prohibits slavery in the Northwest. Later it includes Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
1794-The slave trade between the U.S. and other countries is prohibited by Congress.
1800-U.S. citizens are prohibited from exporting slaves.
1804- New Jersey adopts the gradual imancipation law. the underground railroad is founded.
1808-Atlantic slave trade is federally banned.
1815-Britain, France, and the Netherlands agree to ban the slave trade.
1817-Spain signs a treaty agreeing to end the slave trade north of the equator and to end it south of the equator in 1820. The American Colonization Society is established. Its goal is to help African Americans return to Africa. Georgia bans the slave trade.
1820-The Missouri Compromise makes slavery illegal in the Louisiana territory that is north of the Missouri border. Missouri is admitted as a slave state and Maine is admitted as a free state.(see the balancing of slave and free states)
1827-Tennessee bans the slave trade
and that just a little there a whole another page

yes lets marvel at the relaviance this arguement has to the thread.

You're the one who bourght up that the country was founded by the Puritans and kept arguing it. The only reason you claim to not care anymore is because you know you've lost that point.

it was a history lesson to someone else. sry you couldnt pick up on that.

ya in the south. like i said before. most of the northen states had abolished slavery before the 19th century.

And yet the North would help a Southerner find their missing slaves who had run off to freedom.

it was called a comprimise. another piece of legislation to keep us out of civil war.

Ya working for no pay for years. the only thing different is when you become a master at it you become the slave owner. its just as much as a slave as indentured servant.

No. An apprentice is taken on as a student to learn a craft. They can leave any time they want; there is no law to prevent it. Clearly there is a huge difference.

Historical defintion of apprentice-. a person legally bound through indenture to a master craftsman in order to learn a trade.
there was no pay and he might have to be a servant for years with no pay just housing and food.

Ya, but it was by choice. you werent forced into indentured servantry thats my point.

It was still the predecessor to slavery; landowners realized how much easier it is to simply buy as many people as you want for a lifetime than as many who want to come over to the New World for a few years.

Landowners in the south took to slavery much more than people in the north. Know why? Beacuse the south was an agricultural country. invloving much more manual labor than jobs in the industrial north. there was an influx of slavery IN THE SOUTH.

god, did you miss my whole rant on balancing free and slave states. the last thing we wanted was a pre-empt to war.

And that makes slavery right? We fought a war over it anyways (or at least it became a war about slavery after the Battle of Antitum)

No it doesnt make it right, the north was just trying to hold their breath and maybe slavery would go away. it obviously didnt and the south secieded(something the north was trying to avoid, hints all the comprimises and balancing of slave and free states.)

Hhhmmm the south secieded beacuse the north was becoming increasingly anti-slavery. the north went to war with them beacuse they secieded. sounds like a war over slavery to start with.

At 6/17/07 01:46 PM, altanese-mistress wrote:

it is STILL slavery. You can make it out to be as nice as it can be but slavery is slavery.

ya but havent you heard that you dont have to practice what you preach. i know it sounds hypocritical but they knew that slavery would die out it just took alot longer.

Actually, the Puritans didn't establish Plymoth Bay Colony until fairly late; there were plenty of established English, French, and Dutch colonies in what would be come the origional 13 colonies that rebelled.

yes lets marvel at the relaviance this arguement has to the thread.

I didn't say we did. But right from the get-go, there were indentured servents who would work without pay for years, and the promise of land in the New World kept a steady supply of them coming. Slowly they were replaced by true slaves.

ya in the south. like i said before. most of the northen states had abolished slavery before the 19th century.

ya, there was use of slaves but the ones that did were'nt bringin em in by the boat load like the south did.

They were still there, though. You can't change that.

like i said before ya they were there until they abolished it. except for the south.

Hell some familes would sell their kid into slavery it was called aprenticing.

An apprentice is hardly a slave.

Ya working for no pay for years. the only thing different is when you become a master at it you become the slave owner. its just as much as a slave as indentured servant.

and indentured servants are far from slaves. familes would just pay their way to the new country and they would work it off. not exactly slavrery.

Working without pay for years on fear of death if you don't.
Sounds enough like it. The only difference is that at a point the indentured servents get to go free.

Ya, but it was by choice. you werent forced into indentured servantry thats my point.

Ya that supports my arugement for the cotton gin a couple of posts ago. it alone made it possible for a single slave to make hundreds of pounds of cotton in a day. all the founding fathers knew that slavery would just slowly go away through state legislation, untill the cotton gin.

And then after the cotton gin; which was still in the founding fathers' era; we still waited for decades before slavery was fought over.

god, did you miss my whole rant on balancing free and slave states. the last thing we wanted was a pre-empt to war.