George Zimmerman's bloody head

[ConzHateUSA]

whites are tolerant

wait

LOL

tell me i i didnt read that

LOLOL

 

[Againsheila]

Whites are the most tolerant race in the world.

Which is why most white people owned a black slave.

Most white people did not own slaves. Less than 2% of the population were slave owners.

5%, according to the books I read. Still, not very many and some of the slave owners were black.

There is still slaver in Africa today, among the blacks...

 

[bobgnote]

At one time, the world's largest concentration of capital, in one commodity was invested in SLAVES.

Today's largest capital corruption is probably tied up, in scams, connected to white people.

Just saying . . .

Aside from the fact that you are a stupid racist pig fucker, your dopey presuppositions do not amount to anything worth "saying," you scumbag cock smoker idiot motherfucker.

With all due respect.

Littleidiot, aside from the fact that you are a racist, fascist, cock-sucking, Log Cabin Club tea room faggot, you wouldn't know jack, but since you suck, you might exclaim, "cock smoker," when what YOU do is smoke shit, eat shit, and suck dicks, at tea room parties, so your little, right-wing faggot brain gets confused, in the middle of that.

Aside from the fact you are a racist cock-sucker, I don't see why you'd think anything, but how you have been getting slapped around, since your boy GZ is going down, so whiiiiiiiine, racist, cock-sucking bitch! Truth or dare, faggot?

WTF kind of faggot word is "presupposition?" It's a faggot word, which won't come up, in a Google search. Do a better job, at imitating Archie Bunker, with your asshole on fire, prissy butt-boy.

Aside from your whining rants, you don't have much left, since your fellow racist GZ is going down, and since you suck, you think this is your big chance, to suck some more. But your fellow racist, GZ is going DOWN, bitch-ability!

You suck, you sucked, and you will suck, some more. It's your thing. I DON'T SUCK, I DON'T SMOKE, and I don't do cocks, let alone smoke any. You lose again, cock-sucking Littleidiot faggot-bitch!

 

[Liability]

At one time, the world's largest concentration of capital, in one commodity was invested in SLAVES.

Today's largest capital corruption is probably tied up, in scams, connected to white people.

Just saying . . .

Aside from the fact that you are a stupid racist pig fucker, your dopey presuppositions do not amount to anything worth "saying," you scumbag cock smoker idiot motherfucker.

With all due respect.

Littleidiot, aside from the fact that you are a racist, fascist, cock-sucking, Log Cabin Club tea room faggot, you wouldn't know jack, but since you suck, you might exclaim, "cock smoker," when what YOU do is smoke shit, eat shit, and suck dicks, at tea room parties, so your little, right-wing faggot brain gets confused, in the middle of that.

Aside from the fact you are a racist cock-sucker, I don't see why you'd think anything, but how you have been getting slapped around, since your boy GZ is going down, so whiiiiiiiine, racist, cock-sucking bitch! Truth or dare, faggot?

WTF kind of faggot word is "presupposition?" It's a faggot word, which won't come up, in a Google search. Do a better job, at imitating Archie Bunker, with your asshole on fire, prissy butt-boy.

Aside from your whining rants, you don't have much left, since your fellow racist GZ is going down, and since you suck, you think this is your big chance, to suck some more. But your fellow racist, GZ is going DOWN, bitch-ability!

You suck, you sucked, and you will suck, some more. It's your thing. I DON'T SUCK, I DON'T SMOKE, and I don't do cocks, let alone smoke any. You lose again, cock-sucking Littleidiot faggot-bitch!

When you go all meltdown, whiney and bitchy, you prissy shit munching pussy cockgobbler, you tend toward the OVERLY verbose.

Did you get the Midol and Maxi pads you ordered?

 

[Gadawg73]

At one time, the world's largest concentration of capital, in one commodity was invested in SLAVES.

Today's largest capital corruption is probably tied up, in scams, connected to white people.

Just saying . . .

You are an idiot.
Just saying..............

 

[ConzHateUSA]

Notice that rich people dont go to jail unless they steal from other rich people.

 

[Gadawg73]

Notice that rich people dont go to jail unless they steal from other rich people.

I have not noticed that.

 

[Againsheila]

Notice that rich people dont go to jail unless they steal from other rich people.

I have not noticed that.

Yeah, me too.

 

[ConzHateUSA]

it is times like this we are suppose to put away our differences, our bigotries, for those of us who have them, and realize we are all being played

 

[taichiliberal]

Why does Trayvon's family need a lawyer?
The liability carrier for the complex and/or the HMA is on the hook big time for this. Could settle it without a lawyer. The civil liability here is a slam dunk.
TV rights, trademark rights for the "Justice for Trayvon" mugs, T shirts, hats, visors, flyers and such are lining up. The lawyer smells a cash pay day.

Translation: Another Zimmerman Zombie realizes that Georgie's story ain't cutting it in th elight of day ( and with anyone with an attention span beyond high school), so he slanders the family of the deceased. Gadawg ain't that a classy Zimmerman Zombie!

The truth is slander to those that are ashamed of themselves.

And Zimmer Zombies talk enough BS to fill a staduim! Like I said toodles, the FACTS along with Georgie's continuing blatherings are not working to his advantage. Deal with it.

 

[The Professor]

At one time, the world's largest concentration of capital, in one commodity was invested in SLAVES.

Today's largest capital corruption is probably tied up, in scams, connected to white people.

Just saying . . .

Aside from the fact that you are a stupid racist pig fucker, your dopey presuppositions do not amount to anything worth "saying," you scumbag cock smoker idiot motherfucker.

With all due respect.

WTF kind of faggot word is "presupposition?" It's a faggot word, which won't come up, in a Google search. Do a better job, at imitating Archie Bunker, with your asshole on fire, prissy butt-boy.

The word “presupposition is a real word, a very common word, and it's all over the Internet. The word is also in the dictionary in case you have one and would like to check it out. The word is an all my dictionaries, but right now I am looking at Websters New World Compact School and Office Dictionary, Fourth Edition (Paperback) p. 382.

PS: here are a few of the almost 1,000,000 Internet sites where you can find the word “presupposition” and its definition.'

Presupposition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Presupposition (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

presupposition - definition of presupposition by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

If you spent less time insulting people and more time researching, perhaps you wouldn't make such blunders.

On a personal level, I question the intellectual level of one who has never heard of the word. I have used the word often, but then I have 9 years of college. And you?

You can call me a cock sucker as you have called others. Just remember this: I would rather be known as a cock sucker than an idiot with a substandard vocabulary.

 

[beagle9]

Whites are the most tolerant race in the world.

Which is why most white people owned a black slave.

Most white people did not own slaves. Less than 2% of the population were slave owners.

I can believe it, because they were mostly used on plantations for commercial purposes, and not so much in use within the white civillian population at large back then right ?

The business sector still seeks out those who are a bit hungry, and are willing to do the hard task of quanity mass production where it is needed to this day, but this is also why we have another rebellion going on, where as the Americans are trying to balance the system back out again, by making work more attractive again to it's own citizens, instead of looking for others to be exploited as it were and still is in many cases. All people are human beings worthy of their works and talents, but large businesses and corporations can't help but to emplore communist/socailist thinking into their models, in order to keep all workers on a level that which can be used in ways that will allow mass production in various types of jobs, in which are still many in this nation that fit this bill, in order to get the job done with very little impact against their bottom lines or either against what the owners think they should be getting out of the deal, when conducting business in various ways and in means for which they do emplore still, and this regardless of what is right and what is fair in the situations that which are still going on these situations today.

 

[paperview]

I can believe it, because they were mostly used on plantations for commercial purposes, and not so much in use within the white civillian population at large back then right ?

About 30% of Southern families owned slaves.

 

[paperview]

Guess who was arrested for DUI this weekend?




Frank Taaffe''s mug shot.


Aw, Tugboat's biggest defender and supporter, a drunk!


Who could see that coming?

 

[Gadawg73]

I can believe it, because they were mostly used on plantations for commercial purposes, and not so much in use within the white civillian population at large back then right ?

About 30% of Southern families owned slaves.

Wrong.
In today's $$$ a slave costs around $45,000 a piece on average and a young female was around $65,000 and a young strong male was as high as $90,000.

Your quote is from a whacky Yahoo statistic that quotes "families"

A family could have 4 brothers with their families, 8 cousins with their families and 11 grandsons with their families for a total of 117 people all "owning" slaves.

Your stats, which only a fool would believe as most Americans do not know anything about statistics, lump all of them together as ONE family.

5 year olds do not own slaves, 12 year olds also but they were counted in the 1860 census as "potential" slave owners.

Only 2 % of southerners that were adults owned slaves.

 

[paperview]

I can believe it, because they were mostly used on plantations for commercial purposes, and not so much in use within the white civillian population at large back then right ?

About 30% of Southern families owned slaves.

Wrong.
In today's $$$ a slave costs around $45,000 a piece on average and a young female was around $65,000 and a young strong male was as high as $90,000.

Your quote is from a whacky Yahoo statistic that quotes "families"

A family could have 4 brothers with their families, 8 cousins with their families and 11 grandsons with their families for a total of 117 people all "owning" slaves.

Your stats, which only a fool would believe as most Americans do not know anything about statistics, lump all of them together as ONE family.

5 year olds do not own slaves, 12 year olds also but they were counted in the 1860 census as "potential" slave owners.

Only 2 % of southerners that were adults owned slaves.

I'll warn you, arguing with me about Civil War history is a losing venture for you. Know that upfront.

My statistic is correct, and it's not from some "whacky yahoo" site, it's from reputable historians.

If a family owned slaves, they reaped the financial benefit of those slaves. It was considered a household "asset."

Here's some numbers for you to munch on.

Selected Statistics on Slavery in the United States

(unless otherwise noted, all data is as of the 1860 census)

Total number of slaves in the Lower South : 2,312,352 (47% of total population).


Total number of slaves in the Upper South: 1,208758 (29% of total population).


Total number of slaves in the Border States: 432,586 (13% of total population).


Almost one-third of all Southern families owned slaves. In Mississippi and South Carolina it approached one half. The total number of slave owners was 385,000 (including, in Louisiana, some free Negroes).

As for the number of slaves owned by each master, 88% held fewer than twenty, and nearly 50% held fewer than five. (A complete table on slave-owning percentages is given at the bottom of this page.)


For comparison's sake, let it be noted that in the 1950's, only 2% of American families owned corporation stocks equal in value to the 1860 value of a single slave. Thus, slave ownership was much more widespread in the South than corporate investment was in 1950's America.

On a typical plantation (more than 20 slaves) the capital value of the slaves was greater than the capital value of the land and implements.


Slavery was profitable, although a large part of the profit was in the increased value of the slaves themselves. With only 30% of the nation's (free) population, the South had 60% of the "wealthiest men." The 1860 per capita wealth in the South was $3,978; in the North it was $2,040.

Selected Bibliography

1. Battle Cry of Freedom, by James McPherson
2. Ordeal by Fire, by James McPherson
3. The Confederate Nation, by Emory Thomas
4. Civil War Day by Day, by E.B. Long
5. Ordeal of the Union (8 vols.) by Allan Nevins
6. Reader's Companion to American History, by Eric Foner and John Garrity

Selected Statistics

Need pictures?

In the eleven states that formed the Confederacy, there were in aggregate just over 1 million free households, which between them represented 316,632 slaveholders—meaning that somewhere between one-quarter and one-third of households in the Confederate States counted among its assets at least one human being.

 

[Gadawg73]

About 30% of Southern families owned slaves.

Wrong.
In today's $$$ a slave costs around $45,000 a piece on average and a young female was around $65,000 and a young strong male was as high as $90,000.

Your quote is from a whacky Yahoo statistic that quotes "families"

A family could have 4 brothers with their families, 8 cousins with their families and 11 grandsons with their families for a total of 117 people all "owning" slaves.

Your stats, which only a fool would believe as most Americans do not know anything about statistics, lump all of them together as ONE family.

5 year olds do not own slaves, 12 year olds also but they were counted in the 1860 census as "potential" slave owners.

Only 2 % of southerners that were adults owned slaves.

I'll warn you, arguing with me about Civil War history is a losing venture for you. Know that upfront.

My statistic is correct, and it's not from some "whacky yahoo" site, it's from reputable historians.

If a family owned slaves, they reaped the financial benefit of those slaves. It was considered a household "asset."

Here's some numbers for you to munch on.

Selected Statistics on Slavery in the United States

(unless otherwise noted, all data is as of the 1860 census)

Total number of slaves in the Lower South : 2,312,352 (47% of total population).


Total number of slaves in the Upper South: 1,208758 (29% of total population).


Total number of slaves in the Border States: 432,586 (13% of total population).


Almost one-third of all Southern families owned slaves. In Mississippi and South Carolina it approached one half. The total number of slave owners was 385,000 (including, in Louisiana, some free Negroes).

As for the number of slaves owned by each master, 88% held fewer than twenty, and nearly 50% held fewer than five. (A complete table on slave-owning percentages is given at the bottom of this page.)


For comparison's sake, let it be noted that in the 1950's, only 2% of American families owned corporation stocks equal in value to the 1860 value of a single slave. Thus, slave ownership was much more widespread in the South than corporate investment was in 1950's America.

On a typical plantation (more than 20 slaves) the capital value of the slaves was greater than the capital value of the land and implements.


Slavery was profitable, although a large part of the profit was in the increased value of the slaves themselves. With only 30% of the nation's (free) population, the South had 60% of the "wealthiest men." The 1860 per capita wealth in the South was $3,978; in the North it was $2,040.

Selected Bibliography

1. Battle Cry of Freedom, by James McPherson
2. Ordeal by Fire, by James McPherson
3. The Confederate Nation, by Emory Thomas
4. Civil War Day by Day, by E.B. Long
5. Ordeal of the Union (8 vols.) by Allan Nevins
6. Reader's Companion to American History, by Eric Foner and John Garrity

Selected Statistics

Need pictures?

In the eleven states that formed the Confederacy, there were in aggregate just over 1 million free households, which between them represented 316,632 slaveholders—meaning that somewhere between one-quarter and one-third of households in the Confederate States counted among its assets at least one human being.

1 million "free households in the Confederacy" LOL
There were 300,000 KIA and 200,000 troops that went home after the war ended in the Confederacy.
50% of the entire families in the southern states DID NOT have a service member in the Confederate Army.
Your stats are bogus as they come. There were far over 5 million free citizens in the south in 1860 than the records reflect. Closer to 6.5 million+ and per farm you are looking at property ownership of slaves was about 2% of the citizens of the south owned slaves.
You do know Ms. Expert that most of the courthouses in Georgia WERE BURNED TO THE GROUND during the civil war so how can you state with a straight face your biased 30% figure. ALL you have is the bogus 1860 census which was poorly done modeled after the corrupt 1850 census.
You do know that under reporting of the southern states of free citizens favored the north in Congress don't you Ms. Expert?
Every research done on the southern 1860 census reports a margin of error of reporting of free adult citizens as a low of 19% and a high of 25%.

 

[Inthemiddle]

1 million "free households in the Confederacy" LOL
There were 300,000 KIA and 200,000 troops that went home after the war ended in the Confederacy.
50% of the entire families in the southern states DID NOT have a service member in the Confederate Army.

So, 300k + 200k = 500k = 1 milion * 1/2

 

[Gadawg73]

1 million "free households in the Confederacy" LOL
There were 300,000 KIA and 200,000 troops that went home after the war ended in the Confederacy.
50% of the entire families in the southern states DID NOT have a service member in the Confederate Army.

So, 300k + 200k = 500k = 1 milion * 1/2

1/2 of the families in the south did not have a soldier in the Confederate Army.
About 15-20% and many of those deserted just as the Union Army did.
The 1850 and 1860 census was heavily influenced by the north.
You do know that census counts allocate Congressional districts.
Don't you?
The 1850 and 1860 southern census counts were bogus as the low balled the free citizen counts.
Why? Because of the expansion of slavery was opposed and rightfully so. The result was an uncercount of the citizens of the south. That pissed off the south so that influenced the war.
Facts are a bitch.

 

[beagle9]

Wrong.
In today's $$$ a slave costs around $45,000 a piece on average and a young female was around $65,000 and a young strong male was as high as $90,000.

Your quote is from a whacky Yahoo statistic that quotes "families"

A family could have 4 brothers with their families, 8 cousins with their families and 11 grandsons with their families for a total of 117 people all "owning" slaves.

Your stats, which only a fool would believe as most Americans do not know anything about statistics, lump all of them together as ONE family.

5 year olds do not own slaves, 12 year olds also but they were counted in the 1860 census as "potential" slave owners.

Only 2 % of southerners that were adults owned slaves.

I'll warn you, arguing with me about Civil War history is a losing venture for you. Know that upfront.

My statistic is correct, and it's not from some "whacky yahoo" site, it's from reputable historians.

If a family owned slaves, they reaped the financial benefit of those slaves. It was considered a household "asset."

Here's some numbers for you to munch on.

Selected Statistics on Slavery in the United States



Selected Statistics

Need pictures?

In the eleven states that formed the Confederacy, there were in aggregate just over 1 million free households, which between them represented 316,632 slaveholders—meaning that somewhere between one-quarter and one-third of households in the Confederate States counted among its assets at least one human being.

1 million "free households in the Confederacy" LOL
There were 300,000 KIA and 200,000 troops that went home after the war ended in the Confederacy.
50% of the entire families in the southern states DID NOT have a service member in the Confederate Army.
Your stats are bogus as they come. There were far over 5 million free citizens in the south in 1860 than the records reflect. Closer to 6.5 million+ and per farm you are looking at property ownership of slaves was about 2% of the citizens of the south owned slaves.
You do know Ms. Expert that most of the courthouses in Georgia WERE BURNED TO THE GROUND during the civil war so how can you state with a straight face your biased 30% figure. ALL you have is the bogus 1860 census which was poorly done modeled after the corrupt 1850 census.
You do know that under reporting of the southern states of free citizens favored the north in Congress don't you Ms. Expert?
Every research done on the southern 1860 census reports a margin of error of reporting of free adult citizens as a low of 19% and a high of 25%.

While we are at it for a second or two (off topic a bit), I traveled down to South Carolina over the weekened to check out the Riverbanks Zoo in which they have there, and while at it I went to the State Museum as well. Ok to quickly ask a question or a few questions here to the experts. Why is it that there is an exhibit depicting slavery in this museum, and in the exhibit there is a sign or statement that read " It was very hard work, and the treatement was very cruel", then there was a film speaking of horrid things that were done by some college looking history proffessor for whom was narrating this film, otherwise letting people (the black children most importantly I guess) know how it was back then for slaves, and this as was written by some of the slaves themselves, but when the statehouse grounds has a civil war soldier and a rebel flag for historical purposes dipicted upon that monument, the blacks want this piece of history removed ?

How is that they are OK with history teaching their children about the cruelty found in the history of slavery, along with other teachings as well, but it is not Ok to also learn about or know about the whole entire history of the period as it should be learned fully by all ? Why is it that they want history to very much teach their young to possibly hate by way of such history as is learned within a biased version given them (in which it can easily be taught in this way by them if choose to), and to do it in a way where history is only half taught, instead of taught in it's entirety ??????

I say that all of it should be removed (even the slavery side of it in regards to the teachings of that part of it also), and this where ever it may be in this nation, and especially so if it is that the other parts of it are to be removed as wanted by the blacks upon their demands, that are given concerning the monument and etc. also.

Do they want to teach their young to hate whites with this history, and then the whites have no way of recourse in regards for their young (the white kids) if that were to be the case in response to such hatred as is learned by those who would hate for the reason of having their part of history spoken of to them, but the whites would have no knowledge of the entire history as it should be known by them as well ?

It must all be learned equally and thoughfully or it should be banished totally (IMHO), as seen in this type of history for all time, in so that neither will remember these bad times ever again, nor will it continue to teach the children of either race about such things that we all need to defintely forget and get beyond finally.

Now we know that no one is letting go of the nations history (no matter how bad or how good it was at any given time), so it is that the history should be taught in all of it's context and fullness there of, including all monuments and historical records for all to review included, and this in order to digest it properly in these ways as it should be. To suggest anything else is downright wrong for anyone to want a one sided version of history for themselves, and it's events in this nation, but when I saw this at the museum, and then I thought about the monument on the statehouse grounds being under attack as it were a while back in the news by the blacks, I was taken back a little. I am for teaching peace not hatred always, so if any part of it goes, then it all must go in order to make it right for all in the exchange. No one sided way about it.. Period!

Infact if all local and state run governments would banish all forms of "hatred" as is found within the history of this great war between Americans, even though it would be still kept in individual households by choice of those individuals, and would be still taught in such households, yet fewer and fewer of them as time goes by, then the power of it and the sting of it would be so deminished in this respect, that it would soon eventually slip away into the shadows of time, to never be heard from or spoken of again. Think about it.................................Maybe some great consessions could be made, in order to finally get both sides to lay down their hurtful words spoken, and to no longer teach hatred, just as it was that the Japaneese had done the same thing in these ways after world war two.

Will this nation ever come together in the right ways finally, and as Americans all (or) will we keep seperating along imaginary lines that are always being drawn in the sands by various groups in a continuance of these sorts of things ?