Cable News

[Bob21]

Not at all, far from being anywhere near left wing, just calling out your droned out repetitive garbage, you keep spewing, you sound like you have early onset dementia. You should seek help, before it's too late.

Ozzy, do you call it garbage pointing out America is why slavery doesn’t exists in the world today?

Many people, including Redietz, don’t understand that.

People like Darkoz want to go back 500 years to when the concept of America wasn’t even around and slavery was everywhere. Are you like Darkoz and want to go back to Midevil times?

It’s funny what people consider dronning on. If someone agrees with a poster, they are okay with it. I can tell you and accountinquestion are buds, and likeminded liberals. About every post Accountinquestion makes he mentions I welched on a bet, which is a lie. Are you okay with accountinquestion dronning on about that?

Bob, your problem is you spend 95% of your time on this board trying to make the same 2 points. Point 1 - America is the greatest + saved + fixed everything. Point 2 - Liberals are the source of all modern problems in the world.

Thats where the drone comes about.. a slow and steady hummm about the same thing over and over. You have no interest in discussion, just droning on and on.

It is one thing to say that America pushed their anti-slavery values on the rest of the world, but a reasoned point like that is not the type Bob makes. America is THE REASON according to Bob. okey dokey. So he made me do some research...curious. The Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 formally freed 800,000 Africans who were then the legal property of Britain’s slave owners. So then you find out Bob's point is just exaggerated bullshit. 1865 was when we ratified 13th amendment.

So then I'm like, 'fuck, I've been tricked by Bob's rambling nonsense YET AGAIN'. My take away - 'Why the fuck did you read what Bob says'.

I only mention Bob21 welched on CHARITABLE GIVING when he starts bringing me up. People need to understand the context of what sort of person he is. Not everyone pays that close of attention.

People said the same thing about Abraham Lincoln in the 1860s, when he rose up and "dronned" on and on about the evils of slavery. At that time, there were two parties, the Wiggs and Democrats. And neither party wanted to do anything about it. They just wanted to ignore the issue.

So what did good ol' Abe do? He started a new party, called the Republican party, which was formed for the purpose of freeing the slaves. Btw, the Republican party has always stood for freedom from it's very inception. In the 1860s, it was trying to free slaves from individuals, while today it's trying to free "slaves" from the government. Just as the Democrats were into slavery in the 1800s, Democrats continue to be into slavery today, but it's almost a worst kind ...it's the kind where they want the State to own people, and control their lives and thoughts.

If you don't believe me go to any inner city and see what the liberal Democrats have created. They have created a system where the government warehouses people in projects, destroying their families (something that was not done under slavery) and giving these people no hope, but the Democrats still demand their vote, saying only they can provide for them. Talk about a form of slavery. And btw, I'm not the only person who has made this point.

And Accountinquestion, here is what you're missing in your simpleton view of history. Why did Britain and the rest of Europe move to a system run by the people, rather than controlled by monarchies? Because Europe saw what America was doing and demanded it from their country.

In some countries, it occurred through violent revolution and in others, like Britain, the monarch gave up control without a revolution. As you've correctly, pointed out Britain was the first Western country to free their slaves. But this happened long after they had gained their independence from the monarchy. Freedom of the monarchy, is what led Britain to free their slaves. The same happened in America and every other country in the world, but at different times.

The point is it all started with the concept of America. America set all this in motion when the first pilgrims landed in America in the 1600s seeking freedom, something that was nowhere to be found in Europe, or the rest of the world, at that time.

History is complicated so I don't expect people like you, Redietz, MWP, Darkoz or even DGenBen to understand it. I mean Redietz is still upset over the third stanza in the Star Spangled Banner. When people get into these petty grips they miss the big picture. The BIG PICTURE is slavery isn't around today because of America.

Look, no country is perfect...every country, including ours, has a past, and it's all not good. But if you - and all the liberal goofballs out there trying to tear down America - understood history and why America was formed, you'd get how America stands for freedom, and led to the abolishment of slavery here and throughout the world.

And this is no small achievement since Slavery had been around in some form almost from the beginning of civilization. This is probably too much for accountinquestion and Redietz to take in, so I don't expect you two to get it. But we do have some smart people on this site, who understand history and I'm sure they already know everything I just said.

[Deech]

I am not a historian, but I need to comment on the phrase, "America, is why slavery, for the most part, does not exist today in the world.".

America was not the forerunner for society in the 1850's. Europe, not America, knew where America stood in the world positioning. America was not a leader in the efforts to abolish slavery.

As stated earlier, there was a pact in 1815, Congress of Vienna, that declared opposition to slavery. The countries included: UK, Portugal, Sweden, Norway, France, Austria, Russia, Spain, and Prussia. Yes, there are other smaller colonies that took the initiate before 1865.

The countries from that Congress of Vienna pact took years to implement their internal rules. They did it before on their own before 1865.

There are other countries as: Argentina, Peru, and Venezuela that passed the rule before America.

I am not political. Just stating facts (as far as I know).

[mickeycrimm]

I am not a historian, but I need to comment on the phrase, "America, is why slavery, for the most part, does not exist today in the world.".

America was not the forerunner for society in the 1850's. Europe, not America, knew where America stood in the world positioning. America was not a leader in the efforts to abolish slavery.

As stated earlier, there was a pact in 1815, Congress of Vienna, that declared opposition to slavery. The countries included: UK, Portugal, Sweden, Norway, France, Austria, Russia, Spain, and Prussia. Yes, there are other smaller colonies that took the initiate before 1865.

The countries from that Congress of Vienna pact took years to implement their internal rules. They did it before on their own before 1865.

There are other countries as: Argentina, Peru, and Venezuela that passed the rule before America.

I am not political. Just stating facts (as far as I know).

But America WAS in the forefront of ending slavery. Abolitionists were here in the 1600's. Thomas Jefferson outlawed the importation of slaves during his presidency (1801-1809). As it developed, the northern states with a population above 20 million whites were free soil but the southern states with a population of about 4 million whites were not. Though they wanted to for decades the north could not end slavery because of the inordinate amount of political power the south wielded in the Senate.

The United States was all about ending slavery from our very beginning. Thomas Jefferson wanted to indict the King of England in the Declaration of Independence for carrying on the slave trade but was nixed by the Committee of Five because the slaveholding colonies were badly needed in the fight to separate from England.

The United States was at the forefront of ending slavery from our very beginning. Slaveholders represented about 1% of the population but because of their political power it took decades of political movement and a civil war to eradicate slaveholder's political and economic power and end slavery.

But the marxist dogma is always America bad. Isn't that right, Comrade Dietz?

[accountinquestion]

Ozzy, do you call it garbage pointing out America is why slavery doesn’t exists in the world today?

Many people, including Redietz, don’t understand that.

People like Darkoz want to go back 500 years to when the concept of America wasn’t even around and slavery was everywhere. Are you like Darkoz and want to go back to Midevil times?

It’s funny what people consider dronning on. If someone agrees with a poster, they are okay with it. I can tell you and accountinquestion are buds, and likeminded liberals. About every post Accountinquestion makes he mentions I welched on a bet, which is a lie. Are you okay with accountinquestion dronning on about that?

Bob, your problem is you spend 95% of your time on this board trying to make the same 2 points. Point 1 - America is the greatest + saved + fixed everything. Point 2 - Liberals are the source of all modern problems in the world.

Thats where the drone comes about.. a slow and steady hummm about the same thing over and over. You have no interest in discussion, just droning on and on.

It is one thing to say that America pushed their anti-slavery values on the rest of the world, but a reasoned point like that is not the type Bob makes. America is THE REASON according to Bob. okey dokey. So he made me do some research...curious. The Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 formally freed 800,000 Africans who were then the legal property of Britain’s slave owners. So then you find out Bob's point is just exaggerated bullshit. 1865 was when we ratified 13th amendment.

So then I'm like, 'fuck, I've been tricked by Bob's rambling nonsense YET AGAIN'. My take away - 'Why the fuck did you read what Bob says'.

I only mention Bob21 welched on CHARITABLE GIVING when he starts bringing me up. People need to understand the context of what sort of person he is. Not everyone pays that close of attention.

People said the same thing about Abraham Lincoln in the 1860s, when he rose up and "dronned" on and on about the evils of slavery. At that time, there were two parties, the Wiggs and Democrats. And neither party wanted to do anything about it. They just wanted to ignore the issue.

So what did good ol' Abe do? He started a new party, called the Republican party, which was formed for the purpose of freeing the slaves. Btw, the Republican party has always stood for freedom from it's very inception. In the 1860s, it was trying to free slaves from individuals, while today it's trying to free "slaves" from the government. Just as the Democrats were into slavery in the 1800s, Democrats continue to be into slavery today, but it's almost a worst kind ...it's the kind where they want the State to own people, and control their lives and thoughts.

If you don't believe me go to any inner city and see what the liberal Democrats have created. They have created a system where the government warehouses people in projects, destroying their families (something that was not done under slavery) and giving these people no hope, but the Democrats still demand their vote, saying only they can provide for them. Talk about a form of slavery. And btw, I'm not the only person who has made this point.

And Accountinquestion, here is what you're missing in your simpleton view of history. Why did Britain and the rest of Europe move to a system run by the people, rather than controlled by monarchies? Because Europe saw what America was doing and demanded it from their country.

In some countries, it occurred through violent revolution and in others, like Britain, the monarch gave up control without a revolution. As you've correctly, pointed out Britain was the first Western country to free their slaves. But this happened long after they had gained their independence from the monarchy. Freedom of the monarchy, is what led Britain to free their slaves. The same happened in America and every other country in the world, but at different times.

The point is it all started with the concept of America. America set all this in motion when the first pilgrims landed in America in the 1600s seeking freedom, something that was nowhere to be found in Europe, or the rest of the world, at that time.

History is complicated so I don't expect people like you, Redietz, MWP, Darkoz or even DGenBen to understand it. I mean Redietz is still upset over the third stanza in the Star Spangled Banner. When people get into these petty grips they miss the big picture. The BIG PICTURE is slavery isn't around today because of America.

Look, no country is perfect...every country, including ours, has a past, and it's all not good. But if you - and all the liberal goofballs out there trying to tear down America - understood history and why America was formed, you'd get how America stands for freedom, and led to the abolishment of slavery here and throughout the world.

And this is no small achievement since Slavery had been around in some form almost from the beginning of civilization. This is probably too much for accountinquestion and Redietz to take in, so I don't expect you two to get it. But we do have some smart people on this site, who understand history and I'm sure they already know everything I just said.

I never say it but

TLDR

Seriously once you made a comparison between yourself and Abraham Lincoln.. lmao. Pure crazytown.

[LMR]

I am not a historian, but I need to comment on the phrase, "America, is why slavery, for the most part, does not exist today in the world.".

America was not the forerunner for society in the 1850's. Europe, not America, knew where America stood in the world positioning. America was not a leader in the efforts to abolish slavery.

As stated earlier, there was a pact in 1815, Congress of Vienna, that declared opposition to slavery. The countries included: UK, Portugal, Sweden, Norway, France, Austria, Russia, Spain, and Prussia. Yes, there are other smaller colonies that took the initiate before 1865.

The countries from that Congress of Vienna pact took years to implement their internal rules. They did it before on their own before 1865.

There are other countries as: Argentina, Peru, and Venezuela that passed the rule before America.

I am not political. Just stating facts (as far as I know).

But America WAS in the forefront of ending slavery. Abolitionists were here in the 1600's. Thomas Jefferson outlawed the importation of slaves during his presidency (1801-1809). As it developed, the northern states with a population above 20 million whites were free soil but the southern states with a population of about 4 million whites were not. Though they wanted to for decades the north could not end slavery because of the inordinate amount of political power the south wielded in the Senate.

The United States was all about ending slavery from our very beginning. Thomas Jefferson wanted to indict the King of England in the Declaration of Independence for carrying on the slave trade but was nixed by the Committee of Five because the slaveholding colonies were badly needed in the fight to separate from England.

The United States was at the forefront of ending slavery from our very beginning. Slaveholders represented about 1% of the population but because of their political power it took decades of political movement and a civil war to eradicate slaveholder's political and economic power and end slavery.

But the marxist dogma is always America bad. Isn't that right, Comrade Dietz?

Did the Civil War really and actually, ever, end? I think that you guys, in many more ways than one, are still fighting it. Anyway, all the infighting made you guys so strong that a dumb (fucking) virus took over. Lol.

[Deech]

I am not a historian, but I need to comment on the phrase, "America, is why slavery, for the most part, does not exist today in the world.".

America was not the forerunner for society in the 1850's. Europe, not America, knew where America stood in the world positioning. America was not a leader in the efforts to abolish slavery.

As stated earlier, there was a pact in 1815, Congress of Vienna, that declared opposition to slavery. The countries included: UK, Portugal, Sweden, Norway, France, Austria, Russia, Spain, and Prussia. Yes, there are other smaller colonies that took the initiate before 1865.

The countries from that Congress of Vienna pact took years to implement their internal rules. They did it before on their own before 1865.

There are other countries as: Argentina, Peru, and Venezuela that passed the rule before America.

I am not political. Just stating facts (as far as I know).

But America WAS in the forefront of ending slavery. Abolitionists were here in the 1600's. Thomas Jefferson outlawed the importation of slaves during his presidency (1801-1809). As it developed, the northern states with a population above 20 million whites were free soil but the southern states with a population of about 4 million whites were not. Though they wanted to for decades the north could not end slavery because of the inordinate amount of political power the south wielded in the Senate.

The United States was all about ending slavery from our very beginning. Thomas Jefferson wanted to indict the King of England in the Declaration of Independence for carrying on the slave trade but was nixed by the Committee of Five because the slaveholding colonies were badly needed in the fight to separate from England.

The United States was at the forefront of ending slavery from our very beginning. Slaveholders represented about 1% of the population but because of their political power it took decades of political movement and a civil war to eradicate slaveholder's political and economic power and end slavery.

But the marxist dogma is always America bad. Isn't that right, Comrade Dietz?

I believe that Thomas Jefferson was one of the finest statesmen/politicians we have had in this country. Yes, he advocated for abolition but still owned slaves during his lifetime. Granted, most of these slaves were "inherited".

While Jefferson pushed for abolition, his home state of Virginia had the slave population increase by 60% between 1790 and 1830 (Jefferson died in 1826). The southern states were not going to cater to this approach.

Jefferson had a plan of gradual emancipation. The elimination of transatlantic slave trade, improve slave's living conditions, and arranging for new born slaves to be freed after a certain age. Personally, this sounds logical. Unfortunately, opponents stated that if slavery conditions were improved, then there is no need for abolition.

Jefferson was 100% correct about one thought. He stated that if slavery continued, there will be a day when the country would be fighting within itself regarding this issue. He loved his new country so much, he did not want to see this happen.

While Jefferson was an abolitionist, his reasoning to end slavery were not exactly pure. He believed that whites and blacks were two separate nations who could not live peacefully in any one country. Secondly, he thought blacks were racially inferior and simple minded. Thirdly, he thought that freed slaves would eventually attack their previous owners, hence, they should be deported. Keeping freed slaves in America would result in a race war.

As stated earlier, I do not believe America was at the forefront globally of freeing slaves since it did not occur until the mid 1860's. I do find it ironic that not all abolitionists wanted emancipation for blacks as a noble cause. They wanted them freed and shipped to another country.

PS: The Broadway play, "Hamilton" is on Disney Plus this coming Friday night. A great play and a great historical experience.

PSS: MC, no disagreement with most of what you stated.

[tableplay]

PSS: MC, no disagreement with most of what you stated.

Deechster, you may want to use PPS rather than PSS (“PPS” for “post postscript”). I only mention it since you cared enough to use something (PSS) after P.S.

[Deech]

You are correct. Damn keyboard.

[Bob21]

I am not a historian, but I need to comment on the phrase, "America, is why slavery, for the most part, does not exist today in the world.".

America was not the forerunner for society in the 1850's. Europe, not America, knew where America stood in the world positioning. America was not a leader in the efforts to abolish slavery.

As stated earlier, there was a pact in 1815, Congress of Vienna, that declared opposition to slavery. The countries included: UK, Portugal, Sweden, Norway, France, Austria, Russia, Spain, and Prussia. Yes, there are other smaller colonies that took the initiate before 1865.

The countries from that Congress of Vienna pact took years to implement their internal rules. They did it before on their own before 1865.

There are other countries as: Argentina, Peru, and Venezuela that passed the rule before America.

I am not political. Just stating facts (as far as I know).

But America WAS in the forefront of ending slavery. Abolitionists were here in the 1600's. Thomas Jefferson outlawed the importation of slaves during his presidency (1801-1809). As it developed, the northern states with a population above 20 million whites were free soil but the southern states with a population of about 4 million whites were not. Though they wanted to for decades the north could not end slavery because of the inordinate amount of political power the south wielded in the Senate.

The United States was all about ending slavery from our very beginning. Thomas Jefferson wanted to indict the King of England in the Declaration of Independence for carrying on the slave trade but was nixed by the Committee of Five because the slaveholding colonies were badly needed in the fight to separate from England.

The United States was at the forefront of ending slavery from our very beginning. Slaveholders represented about 1% of the population but because of their political power it took decades of political movement and a civil war to eradicate slaveholder's political and economic power and end slavery.

But the marxist dogma is always America bad. Isn't that right, Comrade Dietz?

I believe that Thomas Jefferson was one of the finest statesmen/politicians we have had in this country. Yes, he advocated for abolition but still owned slaves during his lifetime. Granted, most of these slaves were "inherited".

While Jefferson pushed for abolition, his home state of Virginia had the slave population increase by 60% between 1790 and 1830 (Jefferson died in 1826). The southern states were not going to cater to this approach.

Jefferson had a plan of gradual emancipation. The elimination of transatlantic slave trade, improve slave's living conditions, and arranging for new born slaves to be freed after a certain age. Personally, this sounds logical. Unfortunately, opponents stated that if slavery conditions were improved, then there is no need for abolition.

Jefferson was 100% correct about one thought. He stated that if slavery continued, there will be a day when the country would be fighting within itself regarding this issue. He loved his new country so much, he did not want to see this happen.

While Jefferson was an abolitionist, his reasoning to end slavery were not exactly pure. He believed that whites and blacks were two separate nations who could not live peacefully in any one country. Secondly, he thought blacks were racially inferior and simple minded. Thirdly, he thought that freed slaves would eventually attack their previous owners, hence, they should be deported. Keeping freed slaves in America would result in a race war.

As stated earlier, I do not believe America was at the forefront globally of freeing slaves since it did not occur until the mid 1860's. I do find it ironic that not all abolitionists wanted emancipation for blacks as a noble cause. They wanted them freed and shipped to another country.

PS: The Broadway play, "Hamilton" is on Disney Plus this coming Friday night. A great play and a great historical experience.

PSS: MC, no disagreement with most of what you stated.

Deech, here’s what you’re missing in your micro-analysis. If you want to get technical, the end of slavery really started when the pilgrims landed in America in the 1600s, searching for and finding freedom.

Every country that you mention that pushed for abolishment of slavery had to first become free themselves. They became free because they saw what America was developing, and they wanted it in their home country. Believe it or not, much of this happened even before our American revolution.

So once the people in these countries got their freedom, they saw the hypocrisy of slavery and pushed for freeing slaves too. Yes, it didn’t happen overnight, but when an institution like slavery has been around for thousands of years, it doesn’t die easy.

Just like the evil of liberalism is around today and accepted by the mainstream, the same was true with slavery back then.

So I still contend (and many historians agree with me, and have pointed this out long before I came along) that America or you could say the concept of America is what ultimately led to the abolishment of slavery.

It’s the same argument you’ll hear liberals make about the civil war, trying to distort history claiming our civil war was to unite a nation, rather than to free the slaves. This is a complete misunderstanding of why we had a civil war.

As a refresher for those that don’t know what led to the civil war, Abraham Lincoln was a Wigg and tried to get the party to address the slave issue, but many wouldn’t listen to him. They looked at Abe as a “drone”, and wish he quit bringing up the slavery issue, since it made people uncomfortable. Btw, there were a lot of people back then like Ozzy, who didn’t want to hear about or confront evil, so they called people that did drones, or something like that.

So Abe formed a new party called the Republican party, whose main platform was to free the slaves. Here’s an interesting fact. When Lincoln was elected, but before he became President, the South succeeded, because they wanted no part of what Lincoln was going to do. I mean Lincoln was elected for the sole purpose of freeing the slaves.

So what did Lincoln do? He went to war with the South so he could bring them back under his control and free the slaves. Obviously, Abe couldn’t free the slaves, if he didn’t control the south.

More people died in our Civil War than in WW I, WW II and Vietnam, and this was when there weren’t many people in our country. Think about it? Is this what a racist nation would do? A bunch of white people electing a president for the sole purpose of ending slavery and then having to go to war to get it done. And this was a violent violent war. More soldiers died in one battle at Gettysburg than in the entire Vietnam war.

I stand by my contention: America is what led the world out of darkness and is the reason slavery doesn’t exist today.

Now the sad fact is the Democrats under Lyndon Johnson, the most racist president we’ve ever had, led many blacks back into slavery, but this time they were slaves to the State. The Democrats tricked the blacks by telling them to trust the government to take care of them, and many did and it hasn’t gone well.

As the Republican did in the 1860s, the Republicans are once again the party trying to free Blacks; but this time it’s from the State.

Democrats have always been the party for slavery...nothing much has changed with the party since the 1800s, but now slavery is disguised as liberalism....instead of being owned by another individual, Democrats want your life to be owned and controlled by the State.

[Bob21]

Here’s another interesting fact about America most people don’t know. When we got our independence in 1776 and our Founders formed our constitution they wanted slavery eliminated at that time. They understood the hypocrisy of our constitution, while still having slavery. So the abolitionist movement was in place in the 1700s, and long before that in NA.

Here’s the problem they had. The South would not go along with it, and sign onto becoming a nation, if slavery was eliminated. At that time, the Founders felt it was important to form a country for protection and they would deal with the slavery issue later. They needed the South for the protection of our Nation. We weren’t big back then, and there were still a lot of countries that wanted to attack us, not to mention the Indians constantly attacking us. At that time, our nation was mainly formed for protection against foreign enemies. States still controlled everything locally.

Most the Founders thought the slavery issue would get addressed a short time later. They never thought it’d take 100 years and a violent civil war to finally end it. So it’s not correct to say America didn’t do anything about slavery untill 1860s.

There was a lot of activity here and in other countries to get rid of it, almost as soon as the first slaves arrived in NA. But we were decentralized at that time, with each colony doing its own thing. And slavery was the norm back then, kind of like liberalism is for us today.

I know it’s hard for some people to put history into context of what is going on at that time. These people like to apply our situation and our culture and our values to things in the past. It doesn’t work that way. To understand history and people’s actions and comments, you’ve got to put it into context of that time.

In fact, all nations in the West had a large part of their population against slavery. But they first had to get freedom themselves, before they could do something about slavery.

This is what America taught the world. We can be free from the State and another individual owning us, while still having a government to protect us from outside enemies. America taught nations around the world how to be self-governing, which led to the end of slavery.

If the people kneeling and sitting when our National Anthem is played understood our history, they would be standing tall and proud to be an American, but they have been radicalized by the Left, and have a distorted view of history.

[LMR]

If the people kneeling and sitting when our National Anthem is played understood our history, they would be standing tall and proud to be an American, but they have been radicalized by the Left, and have a distorted view of history.

The US should have let the Germans take Russia, just before the annihilation of Japan. From Japan, instead of having Japan return territory to China, the US could have taken over China. Think about it. No coronavirus.

[accountinquestion]

If the people kneeling and sitting when our National Anthem is played understood our history, they would be standing tall and proud to be an American, but they have been radicalized by the Left, and have a distorted view of history.

The US should have let the Germans take Russia, just before the annihilation of Japan. From Japan, instead of having Japan return territory to China, the US could have taken over China. Think about it. No coronavirus.

This subject. So whats with those blue line flags? So you can chop up flag and recolor it for your politics and thats NOT disrespectful, but kneeling is. lol. It isn't that I really care if people kneel or not, I just don't care, let them do what they wish. I don't find it obscene so let them do it. Not much more to it. Who really is about freedom. lol. fucking nutters

[mickeycrimm]

Once again Rachel Maddow proves how stupid she is. She said the June jobs report was going to be terrible. Hahahahhahahahahahaha!!!!

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...i9hUaYWKhCjst2

[accountinquestion]

Once again Rachel Maddow proves how stupid she is. She said the June jobs report was going to be terrible. Hahahahhahahahahahaha!!!!

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...i9hUaYWKhCjst2

She might have egg on her face assuming it is all factual and not misleading.

LOL at that "news".

It even tallies up how many Fox shows have more viewership. I'm not even sure what the point is of the article. Just a ton of random shit put together that is agreeable to people of a certain political persuasion.

[mickeycrimm]

Th lefties are all mixed up. According to them Trump is going to drop out of the presidential election. And also according to them he won’t leave office if he loses the election. You can’t make this shit up.

[accountinquestion]

Th lefties are all mixed up. According to them Trump is going to drop out of the presidential election. And also according to them he won’t leave office if he loses the election. You can’t make this shit up.

https://www.google.com/search?source...ongman+leaders

The fact that you worship such an anti-American goon then act like a patriot shows how terribly lost you are.

[mickeycrimm]

Lol! CNN is calling Mt. Rushmore “Slaveowners.” In 2016 CNN called Mt. Rushmore “4 Great Presidents.” You can’t make this shit up.

[accountinquestion]

Lol! CNN is calling Mt. Rushmore “Slaveowners.” In 2016 CNN called Mt. Rushmore “4 Great Presidents.” You can’t make this shit up.

Where does one get the news about the news? Another Fox News special?

[Rob.Singer]

Lol! CNN is calling Mt. Rushmore “Slaveowners.” In 2016 CNN called Mt. Rushmore “4 Great Presidents.” You can’t make this shit up.

This is the most important news story of the campaign. Creepy Joe Biden sides with every hateful and false thing the cowards at CNN say, yet they all forget about the praise they bestowed upon Mt. Rushmore just 4 years ago. They know how stupid they look today and they're completely embarrassed by it.

Trump and his supporters win big again.

[LMR]

The biggest story is you and Mickey getting together to go down the shitter.