Sen. Cotton Introduces Bill to Cut Funding to Schools Teaching ‘1619 Project’

[Pogo]

And you wonder why so many people plan to vote against Republicans in November.
Racism is rampant in their ranks.
I hope a reporter asks Trump and every vulnerable Reublican if they agree with Cotton:.
"We have to study the history of slavery and its role and impact on the development of our country because otherwise we can’t understand our country. As the Founding Fathers said, it was the necessary evil upon which the union was built, but the union was built in a way, as Lincoln said, to put slavery on the course to its ultimate extinction,” he said.'

Bill by Sen. Tom Cotton targets curriculum on slavery | Arkansas Democrat Gazette

WASHINGTON -- A New York Times-based school curriculum emphasizing American slavery instead of American independence has been targeted by U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton.

www.arkansasonline.com

Snowflake, do you think whites / Republicans invented slavery, as some dumbass Democrat declared on the House floor?

Why do you think plantation-owning Democrats engaged in slavery?

Why do you think they tore the nation apart by waging a war over it? For 'shits and grins', or was it because they needed the slave labor for their way of life to continue?
- Why didn't they just use 'migrant workers'?

Slavery aside, Democrats use Saul Alensky's book, Rules for Radicals', in which keeping people DIVIDED and fighting each other is taught as a foundational ideology, as a playbook and have for decades.

In 2016 BLM & Antifa took money from Russians and Soros to spread racial division and violence...in an election year.

It is no coincidence that both groups and the Democrats have broken out their copies of Alensky's Rules for Radicals and this time have committed themselves 100% to the nation-destroying level of division and violence due to their lust for power and total control.

.

Yup. Conservative southerners were the slave masters. Democrats used to be the conservatives.
Or do you think today's Democrats invented slavery?
Dumbass.

Nice try, commie.

Democrats could not keep their slaves so they created the KKK... Shove your revisionist history attempts.

"Democrats" did not create the KKK. I've already laid that out, including who did, including where and when.

Further, that Klan had nothing to do with slavery. It's doubtful any of them had slaves, and it's certain that none were Democrats, since that was impossible.

But you go right ahead and try to prove me wrong, Bubbles. I'll sit and watch.

Revisionist history attempt.

Southern Democrats / the Democrats are the party of the KKK, Jim Crowe, Segregation, the policies of economic slavery, Saul Alensky, BLM, Antifa, Mao-quoting Biden, Marx-quoting Dr Blasio, China-serving Feinstein, failed coup attempt / America-spying Constitution/Rule of Law-violating Barry....

There is no "party of the KKK", once again for the sentientially-challenged. You've addressed nothing of what I challenged you to do. Zero. I gave you names, dates and places and you can't find a goddam thing. And I knew you couldn't before I challenged you, yet I did it anyway. Just to enjoy that loooooooong pregnant pause while you were feverishly Googling all night and finding out I was right and you were wrong. So you lose.

Or as we usually call it, "Monday".

 

[Pogo]

There's no "degrees of evil" or value judgment rendered there except in calling out that false equivalence as dishonest argument. That's it, full stop, period, aaaaand SCENE.

Except - there is no false equivalence. Again - the dishonest argument is your attempt to make a distinction without a difference.

A slave is property owned by another to be used as they see fit - no matter if that slave made a journey of 50 miles, hundreds of miles or thousands of miles...no matter the bonds - chains, rawhide, papyrus or velvet, no matter the skin color of the 'master, no matter whether the slave is scraping hides or picking cotton.

This is all flying way over your head.

I didn't post about what slavery is. I posted about what a dishonest argument is. Which by the way is generally what I always do around here.

 

[Pogo]

That many slave owners were also great men formulated the concept of a democratic republic and human rights in ways that inspired much of the world for centuries?

You can’t be a great man and own slaves. The Southern gentlemen That “ formulated democratic republic and human rights” as you put it, did so for themselves. That did not include slaves or even women nor the Native American. They were great if you were a white male plantation owner. It’s the same with the declaration of independents. It applied to the white guys sitting around the table, not to women, American Indians or slaves...

You can't be a man at all if you try to judge generations long past by today's standards. BTW, the American indians, ie transplanted Asians, also held and bought and sold slaves, long before whites ever came to what's now known as North America.

Indeed. The practice of slavery has been recorded on every continent save Antarctica at some point in history, certainly including within Europe.

What differs in this case is specifically transAtlantic slavery, the practice of capturing humans from one continent and shipping them off in chains to entirely another, a journey which to them might as well be one of us being abducted by interstellar aliens. "Traditional" slavery was part of the spoils of war --- my tribe conquers yours, that means I get your land, your crops, and your people. When your tribe conquers mine, the reverse happens.

But that's simply a social status between neighboring tribes, who are already familiar with each others' land, language and customs. TransAtlantic slavery was much deeper in that in order to justify that human trafficking the victims had to be sold as something less than human, so the merchants who had started that trade, merchants from Spain, France, England, Portugal mainly --- invented the idea of racism. "Savages".

And that ALL started more than 250 years before there were any political parties, or countries as we define them, on either of these continents at all.

Comparing that to the sort of slavery between neighboring Native Americans or between neighboring Europeans, is ultimately dishonest. And speaking of ignorance I love the way the poster above speaks of "the American Indians" ---- as if they're some kind of monolith just because they all have a common race. Broad-brush much?

Damn, you're so full of shit it's pathetic. The very first legal slave owner in the US was a free black man. You can pretend slavery is somehow morally different depending who was practicing it, I ain't fucking buying it.

Actually I posted nothing about "morals". I described the glaring differences between taking slaves from a neighboring tribe, which was done worldwide, and shipping them across to an entirely different continent. I pointed out the dishonesty in trying to equate the two.

The first transAtlantic African slaves were brought here (meaning the North American continent) in 1526. If you've got something from earlier than that, bring it on.

LMAO, almost 250 years before the US declared independence, but hey, it's all our fault, RIGHT? FOAD!

Actually exactly 250 years as it happens. Again, obscure history I guess, like the Civil War.

I posted nothing about "faults", and I have no idea what the fuck a "foad" is.

It means "Fuck Off And DIE" and your message was very clear, don't try to deny it now.

I see. So when confronted with facts that prove you wrong, your reaction is to throw a tantrum.
How predictable.

 

[lantern2814]

Sen. Tom Cotton Introduces Bill To Prevent Schools From Teaching 1619 Project

Conservatives have long railed against the New York Times Magazine project re-examining America’s legacy of slavery.

www.forbes.com

Good! I have to do enough teaching my kids real history after they come home with their heads filled with leftist propaganda.

Why is 1619 leftist propaganda?

Well dumbfuck, try doing some research. This crap has been called nothing but lies and fabrications by EVERY leading US Historian on either side of the aisle. This shit might be good for wrapping fish or lining the bird cage, that’s it.

What’s the top lies that you take issue with? Give me 2 or 3 specific ones.... I’d love to read about them and dig in

The whole thing is bullshit you dumbfuck. That’s per RESPECTED US Historians. Who are a lot smarter than you you. I don’t care to hear you defend these lies. Period. Just keep parroting your Dim masters. You know you sound like an idiot here right? Remain ignorant. It suits you.

Slogo the retarded monkey gay chimes in with his lying idiocy. Run along before I bitch slap you again boy. Try proving any of that crap is true. Do it or STFU.

 

[Pogo]

We know that public schools are leftist democrat indoctrination centers. Sen. Cotton's bill is what fighting back looks like, and it has to start somewhere.

Yep, it's essential to fight back against that thar edumacation.

 

[Slade3200]

Sen. Tom Cotton Introduces Bill To Prevent Schools From Teaching 1619 Project

Conservatives have long railed against the New York Times Magazine project re-examining America’s legacy of slavery.

www.forbes.com

Good! I have to do enough teaching my kids real history after they come home with their heads filled with leftist propaganda.

Why is 1619 leftist propaganda?

Well dumbfuck, try doing some research. This crap has been called nothing but lies and fabrications by EVERY leading US Historian on either side of the aisle. This shit might be good for wrapping fish or lining the bird cage, that’s it.

What’s the top lies that you take issue with? Give me 2 or 3 specific ones.... I’d love to read about them and dig in

The whole thing is bullshit you dumbfuck. That’s per RESPECTED US Historians. Who are a lot smarter than you you. I don’t care to hear you defend these lies. Period. Just keep parroting your Dim masters. You know you sound like an idiot here right? Remain ignorant. It suits you.

I haven’t heard a lie stated yet despite numerous asks... can you state one lie that you object to from this piece that you claim is full of them? Let’s dig in

 

[Slade3200]

What was the harsh criticism? From what I read she included the quotes from his speech and idea to colonize elsewhere. Was there more where she lied about something Abe said or criticized him in an unfair way?

You said you hadn't read any of the project. Now you claim differently when it suits your purposes.

I’ve been reading up. Like I said, I entered this thread to learn. You ready to dig in? What lie would you like to examine?

 

[lantern2814]

Sen. Tom Cotton Introduces Bill To Prevent Schools From Teaching 1619 Project

Conservatives have long railed against the New York Times Magazine project re-examining America’s legacy of slavery.

www.forbes.com

Good! I have to do enough teaching my kids real history after they come home with their heads filled with leftist propaganda.

Why is 1619 leftist propaganda?

Well dumbfuck, try doing some research. This crap has been called nothing but lies and fabrications by EVERY leading US Historian on either side of the aisle. This shit might be good for wrapping fish or lining the bird cage, that’s it.

What’s the top lies that you take issue with? Give me 2 or 3 specific ones.... I’d love to read about them and dig in

The whole thing is bullshit you dumbfuck. That’s per RESPECTED US Historians. Who are a lot smarter than you you. I don’t care to hear you defend these lies. Period. Just keep parroting your Dim masters. You know you sound like an idiot here right? Remain ignorant. It suits you.

I haven’t heard a lie stated yet despite numerous asks... can you state one lie that you object to from this piece that you claim is full of them? Let’s dig in

What? Eric posted some and you just ignored them. My God you’re dense.

 

[Dagosa]

That many slave owners were also great men formulated the concept of a democratic republic and human rights in ways that inspired much of the world for centuries?

You can’t be a great man and own slaves. The Southern gentlemen That “ formulated democratic republic and human rights” as you put it, did so for themselves. That did not include slaves or even women nor the Native American. They were great if you were a white male plantation owner. It’s the same with the declaration of independents. It applied to the white guys sitting around the table, not to women, American Indians or slaves...

You can't be a man at all if you try to judge generations long past by today's standards. BTW, the American indians, ie transplanted Asians, also held and bought and sold slaves, long before whites ever came to what's now known as North America.

Indeed. The practice of slavery has been recorded on every continent save Antarctica at some point in history, certainly including within Europe.

What differs in this case is specifically transAtlantic slavery, the practice of capturing humans from one continent and shipping them off in chains to entirely another, a journey which to them might as well be one of us being abducted by interstellar aliens. "Traditional" slavery was part of the spoils of war --- my tribe conquers yours, that means I get your land, your crops, and your people. When your tribe conquers mine, the reverse happens.

But that's simply a social status between neighboring tribes, who are already familiar with each others' land, language and customs. TransAtlantic slavery was much deeper in that in order to justify that human trafficking the victims had to be sold as something less than human, so the merchants who had started that trade, merchants from Spain, France, England, Portugal mainly --- invented the idea of racism. "Savages".

And that ALL started more than 250 years before there were any political parties, or countries as we define them, on either of these continents at all.

Comparing that to the sort of slavery between neighboring Native Americans or between neighboring Europeans, is ultimately dishonest. And speaking of ignorance I love the way the poster above speaks of "the American Indians" ---- as if they're some kind of monolith just because they all have a common race. Broad-brush much?

Damn, you're so full of shit it's pathetic. The very first legal slave owner in the US was a free black man. You can pretend slavery is somehow morally different depending who was practicing it, I ain't fucking buying it.

Actually I posted nothing about "morals". I described the glaring differences between taking slaves from a neighboring tribe, which was done worldwide, and shipping them across to an entirely different continent. I pointed out the dishonesty in trying to equate the two.

The first transAtlantic African slaves were brought here (meaning the North American continent) in 1526. If you've got something from earlier than that, bring it on.

LMAO, almost 250 years before the US declared independence, but hey, it's all our fault, RIGHT? FOAD!

Actually exactly 250 years as it happens. Again, obscure history I guess, like the Civil War.

I posted nothing about "faults", and I have no idea what the fuck a "foad" is.

It means "Fuck Off And DIE" and your message was very clear, don't try to deny it now.

I see. So when confronted with facts that prove you wrong, your reaction is to throw a tantrum.
How predictable.

Dreaming ? There is no such thing as an unbiased testing for anyone. Trumpets always call fake news when they disagree with anything no matter how real.

 

[Slade3200]

Sen. Tom Cotton Introduces Bill To Prevent Schools From Teaching 1619 Project

Conservatives have long railed against the New York Times Magazine project re-examining America’s legacy of slavery.

www.forbes.com

Good! I have to do enough teaching my kids real history after they come home with their heads filled with leftist propaganda.

Why is 1619 leftist propaganda?

Well dumbfuck, try doing some research. This crap has been called nothing but lies and fabrications by EVERY leading US Historian on either side of the aisle. This shit might be good for wrapping fish or lining the bird cage, that’s it.

What’s the top lies that you take issue with? Give me 2 or 3 specific ones.... I’d love to read about them and dig in

The whole thing is bullshit you dumbfuck. That’s per RESPECTED US Historians. Who are a lot smarter than you you. I don’t care to hear you defend these lies. Period. Just keep parroting your Dim masters. You know you sound like an idiot here right? Remain ignorant. It suits you.

I haven’t heard a lie stated yet despite numerous asks... can you state one lie that you object to from this piece that you claim is full of them? Let’s dig in

What? Eric posted some and you just ignored them. My God you’re dense.

Ive responded to everything presented to me. What do you think I ignored?

 

[SeaGal]

I didn't post about what slavery is. I posted about what a dishonest argument is. Which by the way is generally what I always do around here.

So am I, and it's yours.

 

[Pogo]

I didn't post about what slavery is. I posted about what a dishonest argument is. Which by the way is generally what I always do around here.

So am I, and it's yours.

Dooooooooon't think so. I pointed out the deep distinctions betwixt neighboring slavery and intercontinental human trafficking, and it wasn't refuted at all. The guy I was talking to threw a tantrum and you came in with whips and chains. That's all very interesting I guess but it doesn't challenge what I laid out.

 

[SeaGal]

I didn't post about what slavery is. I posted about what a dishonest argument is. Which by the way is generally what I always do around here.

So am I, and it's yours.

Dooooooooon't think so. I pointed out the deep distinctions betwixt neighboring slavery and intercontinental human trafficking, and it wasn't refuted at all. The guy I was talking to threw a tantrum and you came in with whips and chains. That's all very interesting I guess but it doesn't challenge what I laid out.

Actually, no whips.

Refute?...you can't refute something that doesn't exist. Again, reading for understanding this time - you are making a 'distinction without a difference'.
As you are one who apparently takes great pride in spotting intellectual dishonesty - may I suggest a mirror? You will be so happy.

 

[Pogo]

I didn't post about what slavery is. I posted about what a dishonest argument is. Which by the way is generally what I always do around here.

So am I, and it's yours.

Dooooooooon't think so. I pointed out the deep distinctions betwixt neighboring slavery and intercontinental human trafficking, and it wasn't refuted at all. The guy I was talking to threw a tantrum and you came in with whips and chains. That's all very interesting I guess but it doesn't challenge what I laid out.

Actually, no whips.

Refute?...you can't refute something that doesn't exist. Again, reading for understanding this time - you are making a 'distinction without a difference'.
As you are one who apparently takes great pride in spotting intellectual dishonesty - may I suggest a mirror? You will be so happy.

See what I mean? Still no refutation or even address of my points. Naught but red herrings.

Oh well, at least I learnt a new word. "Foad". Ought to break the ice at parties.

 

[SeaGal]

I didn't post about what slavery is. I posted about what a dishonest argument is. Which by the way is generally what I always do around here.

So am I, and it's yours.

Dooooooooon't think so. I pointed out the deep distinctions betwixt neighboring slavery and intercontinental human trafficking, and it wasn't refuted at all. The guy I was talking to threw a tantrum and you came in with whips and chains. That's all very interesting I guess but it doesn't challenge what I laid out.

Actually, no whips.

Refute?...you can't refute something that doesn't exist. Again, reading for understanding this time - you are making a 'distinction without a difference'.
As you are one who apparently takes great pride in spotting intellectual dishonesty - may I suggest a mirror? You will be so happy.

See what I mean? Still no refutation or even address of my points. Naught but red herrings.

Oh well, at least I learnt a new word. "Foad". Ought to break the ice at parties.

You were trying to make a point?
Gee...and here I thought you were simply making an silly assertion that geography matters. Not to the slave.

 

[Ame®icano]

Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) introduced a bill Tuesday which would prohibit the use of federal funds to teach the New York Times‘s 1619 Project in public schools.

The bill—titled the Saving American History Act of 2020—would require secretaries from the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Agriculture to cut federal funding to schools choosing to implement the 1619 Project into their curriculum. The amount of funds cut from public schools would depend on teaching and planning costs for the 1619 Project curriculum. Federal funding for low-income and special-needs students would not be affected by the bill.

"The New York Times’s 1619 Project is a racially divisive, revisionist account of history that denies the noble principles of freedom and equality on which our nation was founded," Cotton said. "Not a single cent of federal funding should go to indoctrinate young Americans with this left-wing garbage."

Sen. Cotton Introduces Bill to Cut Funding to Schools Teaching '1619 Project'

Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) introduced a bill Tuesday which would prohibit the use of federal funds to teach the New York Times's 1619 Project in public schools.

freebeacon.com

Bj's pull quote


Catching much traction in progressive circles, the project has not been immune to criticism. Several of the nation’s top historians drafted a letter in December 2019 to express their "reservations" about the project’s historical veracity.

"It still strikes me as amazing why the New York Times would put its authority behind a project that has such weak scholarly support," said Gordon Wood, a National Humanities Medal recipient at Brown University.

Sen. Cotton Introduces Bill to Cut Funding to Schools Teaching '1619 Project'

Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) introduced a bill Tuesday which would prohibit the use of federal funds to teach the New York Times's 1619 Project in public schools.

freebeacon.com

So when did slavery begin in what is now known as the USA?

so low income and special needs schools could teach the 1619 project.
The amount of funds cut from public schools would depend on teaching and planning costs for the 1619 Project curriculum. Federal funding for low-income and special-needs students would not be affected by the bill.

Why not?

"schools could teach the 1619 project"

Is that gonna help them more to compete for a job, or for a welfare?

 

[Pogo]

I didn't post about what slavery is. I posted about what a dishonest argument is. Which by the way is generally what I always do around here.

So am I, and it's yours.

Dooooooooon't think so. I pointed out the deep distinctions betwixt neighboring slavery and intercontinental human trafficking, and it wasn't refuted at all. The guy I was talking to threw a tantrum and you came in with whips and chains. That's all very interesting I guess but it doesn't challenge what I laid out.

Actually, no whips.

Refute?...you can't refute something that doesn't exist. Again, reading for understanding this time - you are making a 'distinction without a difference'.
As you are one who apparently takes great pride in spotting intellectual dishonesty - may I suggest a mirror? You will be so happy.

See what I mean? Still no refutation or even address of my points. Naught but red herrings.

Oh well, at least I learnt a new word. "Foad". Ought to break the ice at parties.

You were trying to make a point?
Gee...and here I thought you were simply making an silly assertion that geography matters. Not to the slave.

Not to the slave, no. To the dishonest poster who tried to lump them together.

You know --- "Foad" Boi.

The point was already made, and apparently deftly, as I've got four thousand post-pings from it and not a single one challenges it. Yay me.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

What? Eric posted some and you just ignored them. My God you’re dense.

The last and latest lie was telling me he hadn't read any of the text and then later referring to parts of it he had read, involving Lincoln he says. Can't keep the story straight.

 

[OKTexas]

That many slave owners were also great men formulated the concept of a democratic republic and human rights in ways that inspired much of the world for centuries?

You can’t be a great man and own slaves. The Southern gentlemen That “ formulated democratic republic and human rights” as you put it, did so for themselves. That did not include slaves or even women nor the Native American. They were great if you were a white male plantation owner. It’s the same with the declaration of independents. It applied to the white guys sitting around the table, not to women, American Indians or slaves...

You can't be a man at all if you try to judge generations long past by today's standards. BTW, the American indians, ie transplanted Asians, also held and bought and sold slaves, long before whites ever came to what's now known as North America.

Indeed. The practice of slavery has been recorded on every continent save Antarctica at some point in history, certainly including within Europe.

What differs in this case is specifically transAtlantic slavery, the practice of capturing humans from one continent and shipping them off in chains to entirely another, a journey which to them might as well be one of us being abducted by interstellar aliens. "Traditional" slavery was part of the spoils of war --- my tribe conquers yours, that means I get your land, your crops, and your people. When your tribe conquers mine, the reverse happens.

But that's simply a social status between neighboring tribes, who are already familiar with each others' land, language and customs. TransAtlantic slavery was much deeper in that in order to justify that human trafficking the victims had to be sold as something less than human, so the merchants who had started that trade, merchants from Spain, France, England, Portugal mainly --- invented the idea of racism. "Savages".

And that ALL started more than 250 years before there were any political parties, or countries as we define them, on either of these continents at all.

Comparing that to the sort of slavery between neighboring Native Americans or between neighboring Europeans, is ultimately dishonest. And speaking of ignorance I love the way the poster above speaks of "the American Indians" ---- as if they're some kind of monolith just because they all have a common race. Broad-brush much?

Damn, you're so full of shit it's pathetic. The very first legal slave owner in the US was a free black man. You can pretend slavery is somehow morally different depending who was practicing it, I ain't fucking buying it.

Actually I posted nothing about "morals". I described the glaring differences between taking slaves from a neighboring tribe, which was done worldwide, and shipping them across to an entirely different continent. I pointed out the dishonesty in trying to equate the two.

The first transAtlantic African slaves were brought here (meaning the North American continent) in 1526. If you've got something from earlier than that, bring it on.

LMAO, almost 250 years before the US declared independence, but hey, it's all our fault, RIGHT? FOAD!

Actually exactly 250 years as it happens. Again, obscure history I guess, like the Civil War.

I posted nothing about "faults", and I have no idea what the fuck a "foad" is.

It means "Fuck Off And DIE" and your message was very clear, don't try to deny it now.

I see. So when confronted with facts that prove you wrong, your reaction is to throw a tantrum.
How predictable.

ROFL

.

 

[OKTexas]

I didn't post about what slavery is. I posted about what a dishonest argument is. Which by the way is generally what I always do around here.

So am I, and it's yours.

Dooooooooon't think so. I pointed out the deep distinctions betwixt neighboring slavery and intercontinental human trafficking, and it wasn't refuted at all. The guy I was talking to threw a tantrum and you came in with whips and chains. That's all very interesting I guess but it doesn't challenge what I laid out.

Actually, no whips.

Refute?...you can't refute something that doesn't exist. Again, reading for understanding this time - you are making a 'distinction without a difference'.
As you are one who apparently takes great pride in spotting intellectual dishonesty - may I suggest a mirror? You will be so happy.

See what I mean? Still no refutation or even address of my points. Naught but red herrings.

Oh well, at least I learnt a new word. "Foad". Ought to break the ice at parties.

What is the point, I showed where intercontinental slavery was happening long before the first black slave was sent to North America, you ignored it. Also it's an acronym, not a word, your ignorance is showing again.

.