The fascists are at it again

[P@triot]

Guy, the thing is, we all became "Socialists" after Capitalism failed in 1929. Trying to pretend otherwise just ignores history.

That’s comical coming from a millennial who has spent his 14 years completely ignoring history. That is, when he’s not making up his own version of it to support his false narrative.

 

[JoeB131]

You've posted nothing but your typical fascist propaganda. Not a single thing "proved" Jefferson was guilty of anything. DNA exonerated him. I've got DNA. You've got desperate, left-wing, anti-American propaganda.

No, you don't have DNA. I have the people who are the keepers of Jefferson's estate saying, "Yup, he totally did her!"

So the Monticello Society is "Anti-American Propaganda"?

Interesting.

You just proved it again with your idiotic post. Even if they had a relationship (which never would have happened), and even as a slave, she absolutely could have consented. If the slave owner gives a slave an option - then it doesn't matter if they are a slave. If she said "yes or no" and she had the choice (something you fascists hate), then she consented.

No, dummy, you can't consent when you are PROPERTY. When someone can have you whipped, send you out to do hard manual labor, or sell you off to someone else who might not ask as nicely before they fuck you, that isn't "Consent".

Not to mention she was 15 when he started fucking her. We don't consider 15 years old capable of consent or choice today when they aren't property.

I love watching you get flustered over your inability to explain how anyone could have possibly known about Thomas Jefferson's alleged "fling" when that would never have been spoken about in even the most private of matters. When you got hit with that undeniable reality, you really lost your shit.

Guy, I've already explained this to you. People totally talked about that shit. The Victorian Shit wasn't until later. Back in those days, women ran around with their titties hanging out.

That's what happens with lies though sweetie - they just can't hold up under reality.

Gee, guy, you seem to lie to yourself every day about how "Great" a country founded by slave rapists is... and you wouldn't last a week living in a ghetto in this country.

 

[JoeB131]

That’s comical coming from a millennial who has spent his 14 years completely ignoring history. That is, when he’s not making up his own version of it to support his false narrative.

Sorry, 56, and I know exactly what a middle class looks like. We used to have one of those in the 1960's, when the rich paid their fair share workers like my Dad belonged to unions.

Do you know what turned me into a liberal. It's when my boss who was younger than I was said I was "too old" to be retrained in something and he could totally fuck me over because "He didn't have to deal with a union".

 

[skookerasbil]

That’s comical coming from a millennial who has spent his 14 years completely ignoring history. That is, when he’s not making up his own version of it to support his false narrative.

Sorry, 56, and I know exactly what a middle class looks like. We used to have one of those in the 1960's, when the rich paid their fair share workers like my Dad belonged to unions.

Do you know what turned me into a liberal. It's when my boss who was younger than I was said I was "too old" to be retrained in something and he could totally fuck me over because "He didn't have to deal with a union".

Nah s0n........what turns people into liberals is a pure loathing of other people who have been more successful. Its a jealousy and misery thing for all of them, which is why to a person, the modern day liberal spends their life trying to make everybody around them miserable. Bottom line? They made personal life decisions that got them fucked so there has to be somebody to blame.

ghey

 

[JoeB131]

Nah s0n........what turns people into liberals is a pure loathing of other people who have been more successful.

Spambot, why do you think that money is everything?

Have you actually met any rich people. Most of them are pretty miserable despite all their wealth.

 

[P@triot]

I have the people who are the keepers of Jefferson's estate saying, "Yup, he totally did her!" So the Monticello Society is "Anti-American Propaganda"?

Yes. It’s run by bat-shit crazy leftists like yourself. I have DNA. You have laughable anonymous internet posters.

 

[P@triot]

No, dummy, you can't consent when you are PROPERTY.

You can consent as “property” if the property owner gives you a choice! Choice pisses you lefties off so much, you can’t even accept it hypothetically.

 

[P@triot]

Guy, I've already explained this to you. People totally talked about that shit. The Victorian Shit wasn't until later. Back in those days, women ran around with their titties hanging out.

The only thing you’ve “explained” is how much you desperately need the founders to be vicious, violent rapists to make your bat-shit crazy ideology look decent next to them. As with everything else in your life, you’ve failed.

Nobody in the 1700’s spoke about sex. It was beyond taboo. Women were not taught about their periods. Men were not taught about wet dreams. So there is absolutely no way that James T. Callender could possibly have known that Thomas Jefferson was “raping” his slaves even if it had occurred.

You have to understand - Callender was the JoeB of his day. An angry, immature, frustrated manchild lashing out.

 

[P@triot]

...and you wouldn't last a week living in a ghetto in this country.

I choose not to live in any place that is the direct result of idiotic, failed, left-wing policy.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes. It’s run by bat-shit crazy leftists like yourself. I have DNA. You have laughable anonymous internet posters.

you don't have DNA, guy. They did the DNA. They found Jefferson's Y Chromosome all over those kids.

I choose not to live in any place that is the direct result of idiotic, failed, left-wing policy.

Uh, guy, Ghettos proceed the Progressive era. If you knew any history, you'd know this. It's where the rich kept the people who did the work.

Then we had a progressive movement, and working people moved out of the ghettos and into the suburbs. Well, White people did, anyway.

 

[irosie91]

I support the response of that school--------It would be reasonable to describe the event
in the student's transcript that accompanies college applications

 

[JoeB131]

The only thing you’ve “explained” is how much you desperately need the founders to be vicious, violent rapists to make your bat-shit crazy ideology look decent next to them. As with everything else in your life, you’ve failed.

Uh, guy, people who OWNED SLAVES were vicious. Slavery was a vicious institution based on debasing human beings. And, yes, rape was a part of that viciousness, because rape is a weapon of subjugation.

That the founders compounded this hypocrisy by talking about "Freedom" and putting things in the constitution like the Electoral College, blacks are 3/5th of a white person, and we all need to walk around with guns in case the darkies get uppity, just shows the awfulness this country was founded on.

Nobody in the 1700’s spoke about sex. It was beyond taboo. Women were not taught about their periods. Men were not taught about wet dreams. So there is absolutely no way that James T. Callender could possibly have known that Thomas Jefferson was “raping” his slaves even if it had occurred.

People were very open about sex in the 18th century. Again, ladies walked around with their boobies hanging out. The American and French Revolutions happened in a period called "The Enlightenment", between boughts of religious stupidity.

Callender knew that Jefferson was raping Sally Hemings, because Jefferson was being less subtle than Bill Clinton in trying to hide it.

Jefferson–Hemings controversy - Wikipedia

Dumas Malone documented Jefferson's activities and residencies through the years. His documentation in his multi-volume biography (published 1948–1981) provided the details that Pearl Graham analyzed to show Jefferson was at Monticello for the conception of each of Hemings' children. She never conceived when he was not there. Martha Randolph, Jefferson's daughter with Martha Wayles Jefferson, had made a deathbed claim that Jefferson was away for a 15-month period during which one of the Hemings children was conceived. Gordon-Reed shows this claim is not supported by Malone's documentation; Jefferson was at Monticello at the time of conception of each child.[20][40]

The Hemings children were named for people in the Randolph-Jefferson family or who were important to Jefferson, rather than for people in the Hemings family. When mixed-race children were sired by the master, they were frequently named after people from his family.[48] Jefferson gave the Hemings family special treatment: the three boys while young had very light household duties. At working age, they were each apprenticed to the master carpenter of the estate, the most skilled artisan, who was also their uncle. This would provide them with skills to make a good living as free adults.[48]

According to Annette Gordon-Reed, Thomas Jefferson's treatment of Sally Hemings children is a good indication that he could have possibly fathered the children. Hemings did not begin working as a weaver until she was fourteen years old.[49] Many of Jefferson’s slaves would have started at ten. Another example is that unlike other slaves, Madison Hemings stated that until they were put to work, they would run errands with Sally. This was very uncommon.

Most importantly, Gordon-Reed notes that Jefferson freed all the Hemings children. Theirs was the only slave family to all go free from Monticello; they were the only slaves freed in their youth and as they came of age, and Harriet Hemings was the only female slave he ever freed.[50] He allowed Beverley (male) and Harriet to "escape" in 1822 at ages 23 and 21, although Jefferson was already struggling financially and would be $100,000 (US$2,162,941 in 2017 dollars[51]) in debt at his death.[48]He gave his overseer money to give to Harriet for her journey. Jefferson avoided publicity this way, but the gentry at the time noted the Hemingses' absences; Monticello overseer Edmund Bacon noted in his memoir (published after Jefferson's death) that people were talking about Harriet's departure, saying that she was Jefferson's daughter.[50][52]




shit, they even did political cartoons at the time. Like this one from 1804. So much for "people didn't talk about that shit".

Now, later members of the Jefferson family tried to "Whitewash" this affair in the Victorian and Ante-bellum era where the whole "Raping your slave" thing really was embarrassing at a time when the country was tearing itself apart because of slavery.

 

[P@triot]

That the founders compounded this hypocrisy by talking about "Freedom" and putting things in the constitution like the Electoral College, blacks are 3/5th of a white person, and we all need to walk around with guns in case the darkies get uppity, just shows the awfulness this country was founded on.

LOL! Like all lefties, you literally have no idea what the 3/5th’s Comprise was. And the Electoral College was designed to protect the minority, so clearly you are completely uneducated in that as well.

 

[P@triot]

shit, they even did political cartoons at the time. Like this one from 1804. So much for "people didn't talk about that shit".

Wait...you think the “cock” in that fake 1804 political cartoon is the type that you suck on a daily basis? Oh man...

 

[P@triot]

People were very open about sex in the 18th century. Again, ladies walked around with their boobies hanging out.

No snowflake, women were not doing that in the 1700’s. There isn’t a single person who isn’t laughing at you right now. Even your fellow desperate wingnuts who will deny it are laughing at you right now.

 

[JoeB131]

LOL! Like all lefties, you literally have no idea what the 3/5th’s Comprise was. And the Electoral College was designed to protect the minority, so clearly you are completely uneducated in that as well.

The EC was designed to protect the rich. So was the 3/5 clause.

"We'll count them, but we won't give them votes."

Wait...you think the “cock” in that fake 1804 political cartoon is the type that you suck on a daily basis? Oh man...

You seem to have a fascination with sucking cocks, kind of like your hero Rush who does a really good 'Gay voice" on the radio. Hmmmm...

You do realize that homophobes are almost always latent homosexuals, right. They've done the science.... oh, wait, never mind, you don't understand science.

No snowflake, women were not doing that in the 1700’s. There isn’t a single person who isn’t laughing at you right now. Even your fellow desperate wingnuts who will deny it are laughing at you right now.

Um, yeah, they were. I'd post pictures, but they'd probably get flagged by the Mods...

Who is that topless woman in the famous French Revolution painting, and why is she topless?

From revolution to topless protest: a brief history of feminism in France | The Bubble

 

[P@triot]

LOL! Like all lefties, you literally have no idea what the 3/5th’s Comprise was. And the Electoral College was designed to protect the minority, so clearly you are completely uneducated in that as well.

The EC was designed to protect the rich. So was the 3/5 clause.

"We'll count them, but we won't give them votes."

Nope. Not even a little. As usual, you are completely ignorant of U.S. history. Here is what actually transpired - resulting in the “3/5’s Compromise”:

Southern Dumbocrats demanded that black people be considered 0/5 of a person. They demanded that black people be PROPERTY. But when it came time for the national census (which dictates representation in Washington of course), Dumbocrats demanded that their property suddenly be considered as "people".

Republicans - wanting to end slavery - called them out on this hypocrisy. A huge conflict ensued. Republicans countered with “if you are going to count your property as people in the census, then we are going to count our tables, chairs, etc. in the census”. Being that the north was exponentially more populated and dense than the south, the Democrats were enraged by this declaration.

After a very long and bitter battle, they finally settled on a compromise of counting slaves as 3/5's of a person. The entire thing was about representation in Washington because racist, lazy Democrats wanted free labor providing for them while keeping black people oppressed, while Republicans wanted all men to be free and equal. Of course, Republicans eventually freed the slaves and made sure that they became 5/5's of a person.

You’ll learn about this in high school, millennial.

 

[P@triot]

No snowflake, women were not doing that in the 1700’s. There isn’t a single person who isn’t laughing at you right now. Even your fellow desperate wingnuts who will deny it are laughing at you right now.

Um, yeah, they were. I'd post pictures, but they'd probably get flagged by the Mods...

Well that would be one hell of a trick considering photography wasn’t developed until the mid-1800’s and thus no pictures exist from the 1700’s.

 

[JoeB131]

Nope. Not even a little. As usual, you are completely ignorant of U.S. history. Here is what actually transpired - resulting in the “3/5’s Compromise”:

Southern Dumbocrats demanded that black people be considered 0/5 of a person. They demanded that black people be PROPERTY. But when it came time for the national census (which dictates representation in Washington of course), Dumbocrats demanded that their property suddenly be considered as "people".

Okay, you realize there were no "Democrats" or "Republicans' when the Constitution was being written, right? There were Federalists and Democratic-Republicans. The Democratic Party really didn't evolve until Andrew Jackson, and the Republicans didn't appear until later.

The point was, the racists wanted to count blacks as people for representation but not let them vote. Oh, can we count them as 3.5th of a white person and still not let them vote. Sure, as long as we get to still exploit and rape them. You know, because, "Freedom".

Nobody really was advocating ending slavery in 1787. In fact, slavery existed in ALL of the 13 colonies in 1770. There were more slaves in NY than GA.

Keep in mind, Poodle, these are the people you think we should totally listen to on outdated ideas like the Electoral College and the Second Amendment because they were soooo brilliant.

Well that would be one hell of a trick considering photography wasn’t developed until the mid-1800’s and thus no pictures exist from the 1700’s.

Yup, nobody understood how to reproduce an image until photography was invented.

OH, wait, no, they had these things called "Artists".

 

[P@triot]

Nobody really was advocating ending slavery in 1787.

Again...more astounding ignorance of U.S. history.

“In 1769 I became a member of the legislature by the choice of the county in which I live, and so continued until it was closed by the Revolution. I made one effort in that body for the permission of the emancipation of slaves, which was rejected”

Thomas Jefferson became a member of the Virginia state legislature in 1769 and introduced legislation to outlaw slavery. That’s almost 20 years before your claim above. And he wasn’t alone. George Washington and many others were also advocating the exact same thing.

Excerpt From The Real Thomas Jefferson: The True Story of America's Philosopher of Freedom
Andrew M. Allison. This material may be protected by copyright.