Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/16/07 11:40 PM, altanese-mistress wrote:

At 6/16/07 08:31 PM, Nitroglys wrote: ya but none of them had plantations. i think washington had like 6 which he let free after his death. sure they had slaves but they weren't out in fields picking cotton for them. simply sevants.

I think you're missing the entire point here; it doesn't matter what the slaves did, but that they were slaves. A slave is a slave, with no rights and no freedoms, they are property just like a house or a horse would be. It doesn't matter if they were a house slave or a field slave, but they were still slaves.

Ya, but my point was that they had them only as house servants sure they'd rather be free but its not the way of life you see in roots.

History of the colonies. they were founded by a extremely cristian sect.

Then explain Rhode Island and New York and New Jersy (total religious freedom for all Christian religions), Pennsylvania (Quakers), Virginia (Catholic, and mostly an economic colony), or Georgia (a penal colony)

omg are we gunna start this arguement. all i was trying to say is the colonies the very first of them were pilgrams. come on now we have thanksgiving every year. its not we came over here to pick cotton or practice the slave trade.

the colonies flourished and british influence became strong over them. There were many profesions from carpenter to candle maker. few involved slaves.

But there were indentured servents, who would work on plantations for years in order to pay for passage to the new world; later it became apparent from land owners that slavery was more effecient.

ya, there was use of slaves but the ones that did were'nt bringin em in by the boat load like the south did. Hell some familes would sell their kid into slavery it was called aprenticing. 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.

slowly the northern states became free states. but the south being so reliant on the cotton harvest couldnt give up slaves as easy as the industrial north. so they stayed the same and flourished when the cotton gin was invented.

You're right about the cotton gin, but you failed to mention that the South was becoming less and less pro-slavery in the decades before the cotton gin.

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.

from small pox blankets we gave to the indians

Excuse me! They're actually called Native Injuns

its more like native americans. thanks for trying to correct me though.

i applaude you for your ignorance cellardoor.

At 6/16/07 10:46 PM, JakeHero wrote:

It's a lot harder to get a gun off of the black market, since most guns which make their way onto the black market are first bought legally.

It's actually pretty damn easy to get a black market just like it's easy to get any other contraband. Do you think gun control would slow down this psychopath?

You know i bet it would of slowed it down if someone would actually put forth the effort to make sure a qsychopath didn't get the gun with a 30 round clip.

There would be no massacre if Cho couldn't get his hands on a gun, and that is a fact.

And you wouldn't annoy people if you didn't have access to a keyboard, what's your point?

I love your methods of debate.

At 6/16/07 10:04 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

So why are there still several counts of genocide, cival war, murder, pillaging, rape etc etc etc.

Really, what have the concerts, hell what has any of them done.

Because, from what I see, People are still dieing faster each day, governments are still despotic and people are still starving.

Really, where's the change. Because when I see these concerts and shit, I just see some rich westerners trying to get rid of thier guilty by "doing something".

Really when i see things like band aid i think of all the chariatable artists who played free of charge to raise money for feeding hunger in africa. i see pioneers. sure there not gonna end it but fuck its a step in the right derection. and you cant dispute that. It may not do much but having more and more people know about the tradegy that is going on over makes me sleep better at night. And i've already said ways the average joe can help out over there by donating toward fighting hunger, or even reffugees from darfur directly. you can even invest in businesses there i saw it on 60 minutes. there are so many ways we can help and maybe our goverment would if darfur had some type of vauluable natural resourse.

At 6/16/07 07:47 PM, tawc wrote:

Sorry, I think your missing something here.

THEY OWNED SLAVES

ya but none of them had plantations. i think washington had like 6 which he let free after his death. sure they had slaves but they weren't out in fields picking cotton for them. simply sevants.

No ones saying your founding fathers were back stabbing two timers. I'm just pointing out that they were all slave owners. And that the American Colonies became rich through slavery.
The Slave trade is what fueled america before the industrial revelution.

History of the colonies. they were founded by a extremely cristian sect. the colonies flourished and british influence became strong over them. There were many profesions from carpenter to candle maker. few involved slaves. the colonies were having taxes forced down their throat and didnt want to take it so thus the american revolution. our founding fathers, whom made their riches off smuggling such things as rum and tea, made the decleration of independence. and john hancock sigend his name extra big to be spiteful, you see beacuse he was a notorious smuggler wanted by the british. slowly the northern states became free states. but the south being so reliant on the cotton harvest couldnt give up slaves as easy as the industrial north. so they stayed the same and flourished when the cotton gin was invented. there was a power struggle between free and slave states in washington and civil war was inevitable.

So maybe you could consider the American flag Racist.

i consider my entire white herritage as racist. we have done nothing but kill and mane since we got here. from small pox blankets we gave to the indians to the triangle slave trade. i just like to think we are better than that now. which is why we need to get rid of the confederated flag. it stands for all that was archaic and wrong with america.

At 6/16/07 07:53 PM, Proteas wrote:

And maybe if I used my penis as a pogo stick I could bounce my way to work and save a shitload of money on gas. Wishful thinking does nothing in terms of actually solving the problem at hand, and claiming the availability of an inatimate object as the sole cause for this crime is ASSININE.

Your thought is intrigueing. but i never said it was the sole cause for it. maybe if some idiot didnt sell him the gun he wouldnt of killed all those people. thus making it the gun sellers problem for being available to such lunitics.

At most this case can be used as an example as to why communication between the courts and the authorities doing background checks needs to be strengthened, not as a reason to strip the law abiding populace at large of their rights to own and maintain firearms because less than 1/1000th of 1% of the populace decides to go batshit looney toons and take out a bunch of people.

Ya, it should be strengthened. because some how this lunitic got the gun. the gun that killed 33 people.

At 6/16/07 05:24 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 6/16/07 01:59 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: I'll just start by stating that Virginia Tech was over two months ago, and somehow people haven't got around to thinking maybe it might have been gun-related.

As much as has been said in the last two months about Cho's anti-social tendencies dating as far back as his 8th birthday, you still want to shift the focus to the gun being the cause of this shooting as opposed the sociopath weilding it?

That is dishonest, and opprotunistic, d2k. For shame.

I see it as a fault in our in our up-holding of gun laws. someone sold him the gun, and the extra large clips making it possible for him to kill 33 people. Maybe if he had a knife he could of done less harm.

At 6/16/07 07:27 PM, altanese-mistress wrote:

Actually, that wasn't law; that was just making the Declaration of Independance more poetic. Hell even then, they changed it from 'life, liberty, and property' to 'life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness' since only white males could own property.

you know i just love to think of our founding fathers as back-stabbing, kniving, two timers. They all knew and hoped slavery would die off. until the cotton gin. they just left it up to states to decide as a federal act banning slavery would be a pre-empt to civil war. as they all well knew. that is why we had to balance the slave and free states. do you remeber any of your highschool US history.

At 6/16/07 05:38 PM, BigScizot wrote:

At 6/16/07 03:17 PM, Nitroglys wrote: maybe even it will inspire someone to do something about it. you never know.

Do what? What can the average person do about this? How is "spreading awareness" going to solve anything?
All those concerts and promotions to raise awareness and gain money for Africa or to end poverty. THEY NEVER WORK!!

yeah live aid, band aid. big failures. grossing multimillion dollars. huge failures. hell even the average can help

At 6/16/07 05:29 PM, tawc wrote:

Every man wasn't equal in America until the civil rights movement.

and you blame that on the fore fathers? they, in writing, stated that by law all men are created equal.

What you said just makes your founding fathers complete hypocrites as they and there families were rich because of the slave trade and there war of independence was payed for by the slave trade.

no, the majoirty of the founding fathers made their riches off of smuggling. History lesson.

America owes it's existance to the slave trade.

america owes its exitsace to all these white men not wanting to pay taxes. The industrial revolution went at such a pace beacuse of slavery.History lesson.

At 6/16/07 05:31 PM, TheMason wrote:

I have a confession. i got those statistics from an anti AWB site. there just was no pro AWB site with statistics. But the fact remains that there was a decline in assualt weapons used in crime. No one in their right mind would go out and by a gun over counter to commit a crime. so i guess what i am supporting is an increase in the federal budget to fight the flow of illegal guns to our streets. i just dont find machine guns practical so i supported the ban on them.

ok ill give you that the majority of crimes involving automatic guns are illegally boughten. but what would it hurt to increase backround checks and limit the availibilty of such weapons. if your an enthuisiest you can wait a couple of days for your gun. and what if we increased the gun trafficing penality. just stuff like this couldnt hurt. no gun legeslation could hurt. its the lack of it that kills people.

1) I think there should be background checks and someone who has ever done time should be denied and someone who has chronic mental illness should be denied.

2) You cannot limit the availability of these guns; if you do fully-autos will flood the black market and become even easier to get than the civilian clones of guns such as the AK-47. Simplistic logic.

3) We do have gun legislation, anymore would be irrational, unreasonable and driven by emotion. So please stop with your appeals to emotion and weak attempts at logic.

It is logical to think that a ban on automatic weapons would somewhat effect their use in crime. i mean its common sense. but how much it affected it is low. i guess you got me. the AWB wasn't some awesome illegal-gun-usage ass kicker. but it was a step in the right derection.

At 6/16/07 05:17 PM, TheMason wrote:

It also grandfathered weapons already on the shelves as well as high-capacity magazines manufactured before the ban.

Furthermore, grandfathering is not legislators being lazy. It is a fundamental protection of civilian rights against retroactiver prosecution.

ya but if you pass legislation banning said weapons wouldnt it be a little prudent to try and get rid of all the banned weapons. they could go and take away all the banned weapons. i mean if i made a gun illegal thats what i would do. but the cost and labor would be so high it just didnt peak the gov't's intrest. and dont talk down to me on grandfathering in this case it was laziness.

just stuff like this couldnt hurt. no gun legeslation could hurt. its the lack of it that kills people.

You know, taking away things such as warrents and miranda rights couldn't hurt either, after all its the lack of freedom on the part of law enforcement that allows terrorists to kill people.

You know nothing is safer than fascism. ha. and warrents and miranda rights have nothing to do with the 2nd ammendment. the founding fathers were geniuses. they worded it so carefully it could adapt to changing times. times now= no longer in fear of british retalition.

Please, spare us your superficial logic that has no basis in reality.

i'll try.

alot of useless legeslation gets passed. alot. like i said it can't hurt to have these laws. but try telling the few thousand people that didnt die that it was useless

Laws only apply to those people who are predisposed to follow them. Furthermore, the murder rate is not significantly high enough that we should just throw-out a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

any murder is high enough. if something can be done to slow it, it should be done.

all our lawmakers can do is give them the rules. its an entire different arguement when were talking about enforcing said laws.

No...it is the Liberal solution that when a law is not being enforced to enact new legislation. How about we try giving the existing laws a chance.

i would but there hasn't been an automatic weapon ban since 04.

At 6/16/07 04:26 PM, wisthekiller wrote: everyone on here, except for the maker of the topic and a few other people are idiots.
Its okay to use it if you are saying to stick up for yourself, as long as it isnt just to intentionally piss people off. Im from and live in the south, and admit it was wrong to start a war so people could have slaves, but it just means stick up for yourself.

rebel flag=sticking up for yourself

im sry i dont follow you. a flag represents a country. the counrty this one represents is a country who fought to own slaves. when you wave it, it makes me think of all the people who died for it, and how they owned slaves. im sry but thats what it represnts. make another flag that means stick up for yourself.

At 6/16/07 04:12 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 6/16/07 04:00 PM, Nitroglys wrote: OMG! you've got to be kidding me. you would rather forget that hundreds of people are dieing everyday.

I didn't say that, I said that people are to desensitized to extreme violence anymore to really give a shit about this kind of thing. Yeah, you've got a few folks here and there wringing their hands about it, but on the whole... who is shocked enough by these events to really give a shit? Where is the moral outrage in America on this issue?

There isn't one, not as far as I can tell. Life goes on in America.

that is the problem, and maybe, just maybe this could help. there is nothing wrong with it, just the people in america. we are desenistised and its sad.

OOOH! House of 1000 Corpeses is on!

if you are not aknowleging it you're supporting it.

I'm acknowledging it's occurance, and I'm also acknowledging the lack of action taken to stop it. Pull your head out of your ass.

i know how self-enthused america is. maybe i just like to dream about a time when we care about other people too.

At 6/16/07 04:04 PM, tawc wrote:

At 6/15/07 06:18 PM, animehater wrote:

At 6/15/07 05:08 PM, tawc wrote: You have to remember all your founding fathers were fat racist slave owning bastards anyway. One of the unknown reasons America declared its independence was because Britain was bringing about the ban on slavery across it's empire. Also a huge amount of American funding of the war was from the plantations.

One should not speak about what one knows little boy.

Actually, your founding fathers were slave owners, Many Upper class Americans were deeply worried about the slave ban and a huge amount of the War effort was payed for by the plantations. So I know exactly what I'm talking about.

they were slave owners. but slowly every northern stated made it illegal and congess even passed the 1787 north-west ordinace act which made it illegal in the new states of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin. many founding fathers thought it would die out untill the cotton gin. then came The Slave Trade Compromise stopped slave imports after 1807. that made it llegal to import them. then there was the whole kansas and nebraska vote stuffing debocle. but you see the founding fathers tried to abolish it. if they supported it why would they make every man equal.

At 6/16/07 04:01 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 6/16/07 03:48 PM, Nitroglys wrote: statistics

Your statistics fail to mention that the Assault Weapons Ban had a "grandfather" clause built into it, stating that if you legally owned a gun defined as an Assault Weapon under the AWB, you could still keep it and resell it if you went through the correct channels.

There might have been a slight decrease in their criminal use, but you could still purchase one while the ban was in effect (assuming it was made prior to the ban).

no you got yourself wrong. as long as you had owned the gun before the ban. after it you had to get the permits and shit to re-sale. it doesnt grandfather all guns manufactured before the ban. just the ones already owned. grandfathering is just the laziness of lawmakers, not wanting to go to everyone who owned the banned guns. if they even knew everyone who had one.

So I ask again, what use was this pithy little piece of legislation?

just stuff like this couldnt hurt. no gun legeslation could hurt. its the lack of it that kills people.

alot of useless legeslation gets passed. alot. like i said it can't hurt to have these laws. but try telling the few thousand people that didnt die that it was useless

It's the lack of enforcement that kills people. New legislation doesn't mean SHIT if it's not enforced, and you're little link pretty much proves that in the first paragraph.

all our lawmakers can do is give them the rules. its an entire different arguement when were talking about enforcing said laws.

link

At 6/16/07 03:43 PM, Proteas wrote:

Yes, let's desensitize our society to violence even further by showing them something they can easily find on the news, in movies, and on rotten.com in the hopes they'll actually "do something" besides sitting there in wonderous stupor at the horrors they are witness to. Fucking brilliant.

OMG! you've got to be kidding me. you would rather forget that hundreds of people are dieing everyday. You cant bury shit like this. this is the only way our reality tv druged population will see shit like this. google isnt putting this up for shits and giggles. wether you laugh at it is your own sick problem.

and desenitize our society? how about senistizing them to the truth of death and torture outside of their living room. we are so out of tune with the rest of the world it is sick.

if you are not aknowleging it you're supporting it.

At 6/16/07 03:21 PM, Proteas wrote:

I defy you, or anyone else for that matter, to provide quantifiable proof that the Assault Weapons Ban actually did anything except keep members of the pro-gun control lobby quiet for 10 years.

Because last time I checked, blood was NOT running in the streets the day it expired, as per some democrats predictions.

In 1999, the National Institute of Justice reported that trace requests for assault weapons declined 20% in the first calendar year after the ban took effect, dropping from 4,077 in 1994 to 3,268 in 1995. Over the same time period, gun murders declined only 10% and trace requests for all types of guns declined 11 percent, clearly showing a greater decrease in the number of assault weapons traced in crime.

"Murders of police by offenders armed with assault weapons declined from an estimated 16 percent of gun murders of police in 1994 and early 1995 to 0 percent in the latter half of 1995 and early 1996. "

ok ill give you that the majority of crimes involving automatic guns are illegally boughten. but what would it hurt to increase backround checks and limit the availibilty of such weapons. if your an enthuisiest you can wait a couple of days for your gun. and what if we increased the gun trafficing penality. just stuff like this couldnt hurt. no gun legeslation could hurt. its the lack of it that kills people.

link

At 6/16/07 03:00 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 6/16/07 02:45 PM, Nylo wrote: Discuss.

Sounds like a cheap ploy to get people to use their services by exploiting a crisis. They're no better than P.T. Barnum exploiting the deformed as Carnival Freakshows or Jerry Springer putting pregnant teenage prostitutes on his show to beat the hell out of each other.

aaww but dont we all know more about pregnant teens now that we watch jerry. i really dont care who gets the benifits from this the best part is that more people will know. maybe even it will inspire someone to do something about it. you never know.

*clap clap clap clap clap* bravo. about time. we've been needing another one since 04. i would still like to see the automatic ban back up.

At 6/16/07 02:30 PM, The-JefFlet wrote:

At 6/16/07 02:23 PM, Nitroglys wrote: well they were. you can't deny that. trail of tears. all that shit. the white man's fault. you just cant admit it that the white man is pretty much the root of modern evil.

wow throughout the course of history slaves have always been used. you get conquered, your a slave. thats how it works. "the white man" was just doing what had been done for thousands of years.
truthfully, "white man" should be praised, they broke a tradition that dates back to B.C.

uuummm wrong quote from me. but if you wanna attack the indian question. conquering was the furthest away from what happend. we lied. thats all we did. nothing honorable. just lies. we gave them treaties and pushed them onto reservations. killing many along the way. its nothing to be proud of in your heritage. we sucessfully condemed an entire race that had the entire US to reservations. its really pretty sad.

now with the whole black slavery. there wouldn't of been as many enslaved blacks had it not been for the white man's market. we single handedly turned tribe against tribe in africa. it wasnt conquering it was kidnapping.

and i was praising the white NORTHERN man for ending slavery in the US. that is what this entire thread is about. the white SOUTHERN man's ignorance of the fact that the confederate flag represnts an archaic society that prayed on black slaves.

At 6/16/07 04:30 AM, Memorize wrote:

And you said it was still wrong.

What I don't get, is why the blame is always put on the "white man".

You don't see me going about outside pissing about how my indian breathren were slaughtered just so the "white devils" could live here.

well they were. you can't deny that. trail of tears. all that shit. the white man's fault. you just cant admit it that the white man is pretty much the root of modern evil.

At 6/16/07 01:34 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/15/07 09:33 PM, Nitroglys wrote:

Umm it was more like recognition.

Yeah.

So yet again with the blacks do it so it must be ok.

No. Quit reading into my words like that.

lets see what you said"And where did they get the slaves from? They got them from Africans in Africa who had Africans as slaves." and i said the epidemic that ensued was the doing of the white man by buying boatloads of slaves. idk where your coming from saying that the people who sold the white guys the slaves were black. it wasnt a race thing it was a tribal thing.

it is still wrong.

Yeah... where the hell did I say it wasn't?

well when i compare the slavery of blacks to that of the jews. and you say "Where did the South get the slaves from? That was my point." that seems to undermind the fact that the south was bringing slaves in by the boat load.

At 6/15/07 09:21 PM, altanese-mistress wrote:

So, they weren't 'more siding with the South'

It was close.

But, also consider that it was just about only 60 years ago that America told the British to basically "screw themselves" and created their own nation.

So they still have a slight resentment towards the US. They probly couldn't care much about the split, but they did want the cotton.

aaaahhhh yes, they wanted the cotton. the one thing the south had. and what would happen to the industry boom if their supply dwindled. it was support, but the south was twistin britan's arm.

At 6/15/07 09:16 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/15/07 08:42 PM, Nitroglys wrote:

you misunderstand. Britan and france already had it abolished. as did other countries before the civil war. the civil war was just our way of catching up with the times.

uh huh.

Though I would still like an explaination as to why Britain was more siding with the South.

Umm it was more like recognition. although recogntion supported the southern cause britain never finacially backed the south or come to their aid in war. some support that is.

I just said up to that time, slavery was common.

maybe you undermind some of the history of the jews. like centuries of slavery.

Where did the South get the slaves from? That was my point.

So yet again with the blacks do it so it must be ok. you must understand human greed. powerful enough to bring brother against brother or in this case tribe against tribe. they had war too. now that the white man brought a market for slaves bigger tribes merely capitalised on trade. it is still wrong.

At 6/15/07 08:23 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/15/07 08:20 PM, Nitroglys wrote:

slavery was rampent in the south and black people didnt embrace that.

Except for the few blacks in the South that owned slaves.

ya and im sure those few mislead souls would impact the image of slavery. o its ok beacuse some black people do it. millions of blacks were inslaved. and the north was there to help them.

At 6/15/07 06:03 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/15/07 05:16 PM, Tal-con wrote:

Germans had the decency to realize their "heritage" was racist, and they abandoned it. Not so with the Confederates.

Why? Are you calling today's people who wear the flag as racists?

You can't even really compare both. The Germans went on mass genocide, killing millions.

He is more of comparing situations. the south had a heritage of hate, discrimantion, and of course slavery. not exactly something a normal person of decent respect for their heritage would glamorise. the germans had a similarly hated heritage. they just did the right thing and let it pass.

In the 1800's and before then, slavery was a common thing. And where did they get the slaves from? They got them from Africans in Africa who had Africans as slaves. It wasn't (at first) "I hate them because they're black", but "We should use them because they're easier to spot and we can buy them".

you misunderstand. Britan and france already had it abolished. as did other countries before the civil war. the civil war was just our way of catching up with the times.

Why would Britain more side with the South?

Basically. 1940's: Mass Genocide = Bad. Slavery = Bad.
1800's: Mass Genocide = Bad. Slavery = Common.

During the years we had slavery an estimated nearly 10,000,000 african slaves reached the western hemisphere. sounds almost biblilcal right. these are people forced into slavery or death. that doesnt seem pleasent. maybe you undermind some of the history of the jews. like centuries of slavery.

Basically. 1940's: Mass Genocide = Bad. Slavery = Bad.
1800's: Mass Genocide = Bad. Mass Slavery = increasingly less Common.

At 6/15/07 02:13 PM, slackerzac wrote: The confederate flag is not a racist symbol. It is a symbol of southern pride and heritage. Its the damn KKK and there stubid white power message that make people think its racist.

ok history lesson. the kkk was founded by the southern white aristocracy and war generals after the civil war. One of the founding members was a well known racist general who went out of his way to kill black pows. there seems to be a solid connection between the southerners whom flown the rebel flag in battle and those who flown it in hatred towards the blacks.

Proboly none of the KKK members know that there were ideas to make black regiments for the CSA because even the blacks in that time felt the same as the whites. That the north was bossing them around and telling them how to run there lives.

o god just beacuse you hear of some extremely radical, obviously confused, black rebel in the tabloids doesnt mean the civil war was some big conspiracy by the north to keep the south in line. slavery was rampent in the south and black people didnt embrace that.

The idea just never got of the ground because it was to late in the war for any black regiments to be formed. Remember the saying "Heritage not Hate".

Eeehhh its more like "Heritage of Hate"

At 5/28/07 04:58 PM, simsam114 wrote:

At 5/22/06 12:53 PM, HogWashSoup wrote: unless it is for self defence, it is murder if you kill someone, even in war.

all these soldiers who kill in iraq come home as murderers, not heros.

"hey i killed about 20 iraqie soldiers" < murderer

go pee!

You're a douchebag. They are not murderers, nor they are heroes. They are REAL MEN. They have fought for their country. If you don't respect those people, you need to get shot.

This is where most people lose their way. they are murderers. just beacuse they kill in the name of their country doesnt mean all is forgivin. Sure "god" had battles and waged war but his battles, if they ever happened, were against evil. Not for the gain of one country over another. This is the classic american mindset though. it is our job to do god's work.

We give black people that word. not beacuse we have to but beacuse we kinda owe it to them. 400 yrs. eeeeggggg. kinda makes you hot around the colar.

At 6/14/07 12:38 AM, Memorize wrote:

I didn't say "average", dipshit.

There was no avg. you ignorant fuck. you insult me and the art of debate when you dont even look at my sourses.

Ok that doesnt seem bad too you Here is a better look at all the deaths. 65228 isnt near civil war standards. it is a massacare. We only lost 2.500 that day, that is the most civilan causiltes we've seen.

In our civil war, in the Battle of Antietam (sp?), we had over 22,000 in 1 day.

22000 soliders. people who faught because they signed up to do so. im talkin 65000 inocent women and children. you are just getting defensive. losing ground maybe. I guess to your standards 9/11 wasnt bad. just a walk in the park.

Im sry Memorize you have been caught with your thumb up your ass.

*sigh*, Do I have to deal with another stupid ass who can't read?

Idk what your saying. but it must be beacuse you just lost and you cant deal with it. please just becuase you have senority doesnt mean you can just throw around insults like its the general. please have some dignity.