...I just realized Lincoln was the Hitler of the 19th century.

[JBeukema]

Too bad people didn't know the origin of the word was "niggardly" which meant black, and was used as a quick reference point, much like black is today.

etymology fail

nig·gard·ly

   /ˈnɪg

ərd

li/ Show Spelled[nig-erd-lee] Show IPA
–adjective1.reluctant to give or spend; stingy; miserly.

2.meanly or ungenerously small or scanty: a niggardly tip to a waiter.


–adverb3.in the manner of a niggard.




Origin:
1520–30; niggard + -ly

—Related formsnig·gard·li·ness, noun

—Synonyms
1. penurious, miserly, mean, tight, avaricious, mercenary, illiberal, close. 2. poor.


—Antonyms
1. generous.

Niggardly | Define Niggardly at Dictionary.com
nig·gard

   /ˈnɪg

ərd/ Show Spelled[nig-erd] Show IPA
–noun 1. an excessively parsimonious, miserly, or stingy person.


–adjective 2. niggardly; miserly; stingy.



Use niggard in a Sentence

See images of niggard

Search niggard on the Web

Origin:
1325–75; ME nyggard, equiv. to nig niggard (< Scand; cf. dial. Sw nygg; akin to OE hn&#275;aw stingy) + -ard

—Related forms un·nig·gard, adjective
un·nig·gard·ly, adverb





Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.
Cite This Source |
Link To niggard
._vtad { border-top: 1px solid #B6D0DD; padding: 15px 0 0 0; margin: 1em 0 0 0; background-image: url(http://syndication.visualthesaurus.com/ddc/gradient.png);background-repeat: repeat-x; background-position: 0 0; } ._vtad A { text-decoration: none; } ._vtad A:hover { text-decoration: underline; } ._vtad_flt { float: right; margin: 0 0 10px 7px; } ._vtad_flt IMG { vertical-align: top; margin-bottom: 5px; border: 1px solid #CCCCCC;} A._vtad_explore { letter-spacing: -.4px; font-family: verdana;display:block; line-height: 10px; font-size: 11px;color: #0050BB; } ._vtad_related { font-family: verdana; font-size: 12px; margin: 6px 0 6px; } ._vtad_related A { color: black; } ._vtad_header { font-family: georgia; line-height: 10px; font-size: 14px; color: #575757; } ._vtad_header IMG { vertical-align: top; margin-right: 7px; } ._vtad_header A { font-family: Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; color: black; } A._vtad_other { font-family: verdana; font-size: 1em; color: #0050BB; }Explore the Visual Thesaurus »

Related Words for : niggard
churl, scrooge, skinflint
View more related words »




Word Origin & History

niggard
mid-14c., nygart , of uncertain origin. The suffix suggests French origin (cf. -ard), but the root word is probably related to O.N. hnøggr "stingy," from P.Gmc. *khnauwjaz (cf. Swed. njugg "close, careful," Ger. genau "precise, exact"), and to O.E. hneaw "stingy, niggardly," which did not survive in M.E.


Niggard | Define Niggard at Dictionary.com

Main article: Negro
The variants neger and negar, derive from the Spanish and Portuguese word negro (black), and from the pejorative French nègre (******). Etymologically, negro, noir, nègre, and ****** ultimately derive from nigrum, the stem of the Latin niger (black) (pronounced [&#712;ni&#609;er] which in every other grammatical case, grammatical gender, and grammatical number besides nominative masculine singular is nigr-; the r is trilled).

****** - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


There is no etymological link between niggardly and ******



You love to act like you know what you're talking about, but you never have a clue.

 

[jillian]

ok I will try again. Analogy. Genocide. "group of people"= the American people.

You can try as many times as you'd like. You'd still be wrong.

Now let's try the real definition instead of your self-serving one:

systematic killing of a racial or cultural group

WordNet Search - 3.0

You can follow the distinction, yes?

]It makes no different upon which state right was in question. The south technically did have the right. The war was fought to keep the union together.

And that's where you're wrong again... the South HAD no right.

The articles of confederation was the constitution on which the southern states wished to abide. As far as I know the south lost. [/COLOR]

No. The Articles of Confederation was the forerunner to the Constitution and was in effect from 1781 through 1788 when the Constitution went into effect. The South had no right to 'choose' to go back to a law that was no longer in existence.

Articles of Confederation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Articles of Confederation - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Sometimes it's really important not to make it up as you go along... that goes for both laws and definitions of words.

 

[JBeukema]

No. The Articles of Confederation was the forerunner to the Constitution and was in effect from 1781 through 1788 when the Constitution went into effect. The South had no right to 'choose' to go back to a law that was no longer in existence.

Nor did the Union. Yet it was on the ideas expressed in the AoC that SCOTUS justified their decision that all Americans are slaves and subjects without the right to self determination upon which this nation was founded.

 

[Liability]

Not mad at all, Kalam. Your 'hell' holds no horrors for me.

Of course not. Enjoy life while it lasts.

The life of this world is made to seem fair to those who disbelieve, and they mock those who believe. And those who keep their duty will be above them on the day of Resurrection. And Allah gives to whom He pleases without measure. - 2:212​

Your 'martyrs' are in hell for killing innocents. You are clearly a disbeliever in your own religion of peace.

Martyrs don't kill innocents; Zionazis do. I'm a believer in Islam. Your salvation, not mine, is threatened by your ignorance of the religion and your trollish attempts to slander its adherents.

Actually, Islamofilth jihadist pussies kill innocents. Those filthy fuckwads consider themselves "martyrs."

Islam is a diseased fucked-up fraudulently based religion from the mouth of a violent psychotic pedophile.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jake lost all creditability when he blamed an entire race for the crimes of long dead persons and said people should be ashamed of their skin colour- then called someone else a racist.

JB, I said that whites had an inherent advantage compared to peoples of color, and many like you refuse to admit it. Those who do not recognize it and fail to make sure the playing field is level are guilty of racism, whether intentionally or not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No. The Articles of Confederation was the forerunner to the Constitution and was in effect from 1781 through 1788 when the Constitution went into effect. The South had no right to 'choose' to go back to a law that was no longer in existence.

Nor did the Union. Yet it was on the ideas expressed in the AoC that SCOTUS justified their decision that all Americans are slaves and subjects without the right to self determination upon which this nation was founded.

I think you wrote the above with a straight face.

 

[jillian]

No. The Articles of Confederation was the forerunner to the Constitution and was in effect from 1781 through 1788 when the Constitution went into effect. The South had no right to 'choose' to go back to a law that was no longer in existence.

Nor did the Union. Yet it was on the ideas expressed in the AoC that SCOTUS justified their decision that all Americans are slaves and subjects without the right to self determination upon which this nation was founded.

Because that's sooooo what the Court said.

Sorry... I'm happy to discuss this but there has to be some articulation of basic facts.

 

[JBeukema]

JB, I said that whites had an inherent advantage compared to peoples of color,

You said that all Whites today are guilty of the crimes of another man's ancestors.

'Racial guilt' you called it- in your own words.

Those who do not recognize it and fail to make sure the playing field is level are guilty of racism

Its racist to expect Blacks to better themselves and their communities and for people like Sharpton to stop teaching young Black children that they can't succeed because of their skin colour and they need handouts and special treatment because they're inferior?

 

[JBeukema]

No. The Articles of Confederation was the forerunner to the Constitution and was in effect from 1781 through 1788 when the Constitution went into effect. The South had no right to 'choose' to go back to a law that was no longer in existence.

Nor did the Union. Yet it was on the ideas expressed in the AoC that SCOTUS justified their decision that all Americans are slaves and subjects without the right to self determination upon which this nation was founded.

I think you wrote the above with a straight face.

SCOTUS didn't say the right to self-determination no longer exists?


Show me where they ruled the secession was legitimate, since you've suddenly turned a 180.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"all Americans are slaves"? The right of self-determination was exerted in 1775; it worked. The South tried it in 1861, it failed. And it did not have the right to secede.

 

[JBeukema]

"all Americans are slaves"? The right of self-determination was exerted in 1775; it worked. The South tried it in 1861, it failed. And it did not have the right to secede.

So the right to self determination is not an inalienable right, but a right one somehow magically possess in retrospect is one wins?

Or the FF had the right to self-determination, but other people don't because some people are less equal than others?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Remind me where the inalienable right secede stems.

 

[JBeukema]

Remind me where the inalienable right secede stems.

First form a coherent sentence then tell me how that's relevant.


Do people have a right to self-determination? Yes or no?

 

[Kalam]

No one revels in the slaughter of innocents.

You support an ideology that does. Your kind can attempt rationalize it by making ignorant generalizations and attempting to transfer the burden of guilt to the victims themselves, but slaughter is slaughter no matter what.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Remind me where the inalienable right secede stems.

First form a coherent sentence then tell me how that's relevant.

Do people have a right to self-determination? Yes or no?

This is not a Socratic dialogue. Answer my point, and let's see if you can form a coherent argument.

 

[JBeukema]

Answer the question: Do people have a right to self-determination? Yes or no?


Why do you refuse to answer this simple question?

 

[Avatar4321]

He just freed the slaves (which was America's worst injustice in its short history), kept the nation together and got the 13th and 14th amendments passed. Yea he is a real bad guy.

Where do you people come from? Mars?

And there was NO OTHER WAY to do this than allow over 600,000 people to be killed in a pointless war? On top of that, Lincoln himself even said he didnt give a shit about freeing slaves, his goal was to reunite the union, THAT WAS IT.

Actually, another way was suggested. It was suggested that the Federal Government use the proceeds of lands in new territories to purchase all the slaves through eminent domain and free them that way. Such a method would have been cheaper in costs of money and blood. But sensible solutions are never really appreciated until the unsensible ones occur.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one revels in the slaughter of innocents.

You support an ideology that does. Your kind can attempt rationalize it by making ignorant generalizations and attempting to transfer the burden of guilt to the victims themselves, but slaughter is slaughter no matter what.

Let's get you straight, Kalam. I have always honored Islam and those who followed its quiet path of peace. Those extremists, and their supporters, who defend the murdering of innocents, by your fighters and bombers, spit the name of God and trod with unclean feet on the scriptures. I possess only the deepest revilement for those type of people.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Answer the question: Do people have a right to self-determination? Yes or no?


Why do you refuse to answer this simple question?

Because you made the first assertion, so the burden of proof is on you. I won't budge from this, for you are no different that the conloons who take the same stance. When you make an assertion without evidence, then demand that I refute it, you are no different than yurt or PI or windbag or little fitz.

 

[JakeStarkey]

He just freed the slaves (which was America's worst injustice in its short history), kept the nation together and got the 13th and 14th amendments passed. Yea he is a real bad guy.

Where do you people come from? Mars?

And there was NO OTHER WAY to do this than allow over 600,000 people to be killed in a pointless war? On top of that, Lincoln himself even said he didnt give a shit about freeing slaves, his goal was to reunite the union, THAT WAS IT.

Actually, another way was suggested. It was suggested that the Federal Government use the proceeds of lands in new territories to purchase all the slaves through eminent domain and free them that way. Such a method would have been cheaper in costs of money and blood. But sensible solutions are never really appreciated until the unsensible ones occur.

The Southern planters overwhelmingly favored continuation of the system, and they had no idea of supporting gradual emancipation.

So many Americans died (you are not counting the civilian, by the way) because the South could not follow basic human decency, either morally or politically.