To be fair, around the time of Clinton being US foreign secretary and before the Libyan debacle, he was pro US/etc intervention. He is also one of the best experts on Syria and it's politics before and during the civil war, his interview in the London review of books is one of the best overviews of it I can remember reading/listening to of it and gives a good historical perspective.
To be fairly to him, I think it was less clear then that the rebels were 100% jihadis. The composition of the demonstrators was less clearly sectarian than you frame it iirc, though it did contain those people it was similar to the ones in Egypt in that it also contained young people who were more secular, people who wanted democracy etc.
So his idea was for the US/west to get in and pick people who weren't jihadis out iirc and support them, I guess partly for geopolitical reasons. But it turned out that once the fighting started pretty much only the jihadis were left at least in the north where the rebellion was the most popular.
I do give him credit for changing his mind though when it became obvious.
It's no smarter or dumber than thinking the Iraqis would treat us as liberators. Almost all western foreign policy experts (and certainly all mainstream ones) think that US needs to throw its weight around in any conflict, as if other countries are just videogames we need to play.
On top of that, there is no accountability for the experts who play the videogame poorly - every since he started posting about DRUMPFFF Bill Kristol is reddit's favorite Jew. Will Landis face any scrutiny for fucking up? Of course not, he'll still be in think tanks and on talk shows. And because journalists are significantly dumber than foreign policy experts, none of them will even think to question his judgement the next time he says we have to get our dick stuck in some sandy bussy.
Well I kind of agree a little but Landis did get roasted for this massively and some people who have no connection to western geopolitical interests or the mainstream of the US policy establishment were saying similar things to him based off of local reports. There were people who knew the way things were going there but sort of wanted the US to come in and save them (very understandable imo) and they were believed basically.
55,000 US prisoners died in captivity during civil war.
During a time they didn't know standing in cold mud full of horse shit with open wounds was a bad thing also
>civil war instead of Civil War
Opinion discarded
A painful reminder that the US does not intervene in the face of mass killing -- from Holocaust to Cambodia to Rwanda to Congo; Darfur; to Sudan to Syria. Blame Obama all you want; but keep in mind he's the norm not exception.
When do these scholars think that America learned the Holocaust was happening
On a scale of 1 to "wears one of those special hats with a safeguard to stop him biting himself", how inbred are you? Is your family tree basically a telegraph pole?
Sure. Kinda. But a base in the middle of a foreign harbor isn't really tenable, ya dig? And I'm sure they would've been compensated for it, in time. Or, we could've avoided the whole war if the federal government just agreed to compensate slave owners in exchange for emancipation, you know, like every other Western slave-owning country did. Oh well.
Slavery in the South was an integral part of the region's culture and it was the basis on which the Southern economies were built (which is why the South was such shit at industrialization). It was a completely different situation.
How very different from the Caribbean Islands and South America. Fascinating insight.
Yes, slavery in the South actually was very different from colonial holdings where the Europeans were more akin to administrators and in far fewer numbers. In the South, slavery was far closer to home, so to speak, and families grew up around slavery unlike those of the European empires. It was not only normalized for the entire population, but also dominated the Southern economy. Slavery did not dominate European economies and they were still free to exploit the resources of their colonies.
Yes, slavery in the South actually was very different from colonial holdings where the Europeans were more akin to administrators and in far fewer numbers.
You're right - it was far more humane with lower death rates. Anyways, the deal would've been to ship them to Africa or North Dakota or Mexico or something.
Anyways, stop being a faggot and stop seriousposting. Go sperg out at r/askhistorians or something.
You're right - it was far more humane with lower death rates.
"Far more humane" is a pretty crass way of referring to slavery of any kind. Sure, it was far more humane in the same way that murdering someone with a shot to the head is far more human than torturing them to death.
Anyways, the deal would've been to ship them to Africa or North Dakota or Mexico or something.
The South did not have much going for it in terms of its economy aside from cotton. Completely removing a huge portion of the labor force driving the South's prominent export would have never gone over well.
Anyways, stop being a faggot and stop seriousposting. Go sperg out at r/askhistorians or something.
Yeah, I don't know what I was thinking trying to talk to a /pol/tard.
well, no, it was less industrialized because cotton was significantly more profitable
still the tenth most industrialized country in the world at the time of secession, though. slavery worked as well in their factories as it does in the modern third world
well, no, it was less industrialized because cotton was significantly more profitable
This is a part of it. Southern plantation owners had a cheap, abundant source of labor to support the South's cotton industry. This abundance of labor meant that there was no impetus on Southern aristocrats to invest in building infrastructure and mechanization. Why would they need to? They were already raking in cash hand over fist.
There are some interesting theories about the beginnings of industrialization in Europe, how it was driven by the shortage of labor following the massive casualties of the Black Plague. In order to make up for the loss of so many laborers, European countries were driven to find alternative means to achieve necessary production. I think there's a similar (inverse) case to be made regarding the South.
Lincoln's reaction is absolutely justified. If my neighbor lay siege at my property and tell me to go away, I feel I am perfectly justified to fight to preserve myself.
Listen mate. I didn't need any additional context. Trump has proven that you can conduct international diplomacy in 140 characters and I see no reason why you would need more than 280 for academic research.
When do these scholars think that America learned the Holocaust was happening
It was pretty early on that the Allied powers came to be aware that something was up. The mass deportations of Jews from occupied areas was no secret and more than a few people escaped the camps to talk about what was going on. The thing was its not like the Allies could just reach out and stop it. The only thing to do really was continue to fight and win the war.
He’s simply another garden-variety IR lefty who defends the regime’s crimes and Iranian adventurism to cater to the edgelord failures in /sg/ and /r/syriancivilwar who have daddy issues with liberal internationalism.
Unless the shabiha are onto me in which case I'd like to personally gobble down Dr. Landis's wrinkly balls to thank him for his witty and pertinent commentary.
I think he's a guy who really is an expert on the country but he's gotten to close to it (I wasn't joking about his Alawi wife) so he can't be impartial.
The two civil wars are completely different in their politics and circumstances - they only share extreme barbarism that left such a large percent of the population dead
So, the two bloody civil wars were alike insofar as they were bloody civil wars. Thanks Mr. History!
The only thing Licoln did wrong was not executing every single confederate soldier for treason and imposing strict controls on the south ala Japan after WW2.
Every single thing that has caused the decline of America is a direct consequence of that failure
There were some pretty harsh controls applied to the south after the Civil War, it's part of the reason Alabama, Mississippi and the other inland southern states lag so far behind the rest of the nation.
Dude you spend too much time worrying about "le inbred fundie republicunts" Like did you get raped by one or something? It seems you're really desperate to prove your superiority.
I'm not defensive. I was just looking through your comment history and just about every 4th comment or so is you unironically bitching about what I described above.
I guess I do in some ways, although your seriousposts are so retarded I would probably feel compelled to comment on them even if I didn't. Btw, you never answered the original question. Hatred isn't born out of nothing.
it's part of the reason Alabama, Mississippi and the other inland southern states lag so far behind the rest of the nation.
Nah, Im pretty sure its because while the rest of the nation was developing stable, modern economies these states relies on uneducated slave labor to farm cash crops for what basically amounted to an aristocratic minority who ran the regions with little regard to the well being of people outside their class. Even after the end of slavery that group hung onto power for a long ass time and continued to fail to reinvest in institutions that make the states a decent places to live.
Hence the need to confiscate all of their wealth at the end of the war. It doesn't even matter how it's redistributed, as long as the aristocratic class is eliminated.
I dont think confiscation was even necessary, just barring them from public office would be enough to break their hold on power. Political at first then later economic. An aristocratic class like the Antebellum South had is not compatible with democracy.
121 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2017-11-30
Buzzword is, itself, a buzzword now.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 Redactor0 2017-11-30
Just to fulfill my role as a sensational r/drama gossiper let me drop that he has an Alawi wife. Make of that what you will.
1 ConsoleWarCriminal 2017-11-30
I didn't know Mary Todd was a muslima.
1 newcomer_ts 2017-11-30
The "other" wife… or, in his case, waifu…
1 DistortedLines 2017-11-30
(((Alawis))) are the Jews of Syria tbh
1 lurker093287h 2017-11-30
To be fair, around the time of Clinton being US foreign secretary and before the Libyan debacle, he was pro US/etc intervention. He is also one of the best experts on Syria and it's politics before and during the civil war, his interview in the London review of books is one of the best overviews of it I can remember reading/listening to of it and gives a good historical perspective.
1 Redactor0 2017-11-30
Yeah. I don't think he's a bad guy. He just cares too much about what's going on there to remain completely impartial and not pick a side.
1 ConsoleWarCriminal 2017-11-30
>best expert on Syria
>unironically thought we should be handing out weapons to people who say "Christians to Lebanon, Alawites to the wall"
1 lurker093287h 2017-11-30
To be fairly to him, I think it was less clear then that the rebels were 100% jihadis. The composition of the demonstrators was less clearly sectarian than you frame it iirc, though it did contain those people it was similar to the ones in Egypt in that it also contained young people who were more secular, people who wanted democracy etc.
So his idea was for the US/west to get in and pick people who weren't jihadis out iirc and support them, I guess partly for geopolitical reasons. But it turned out that once the fighting started pretty much only the jihadis were left at least in the north where the rebellion was the most popular.
I do give him credit for changing his mind though when it became obvious.
1 ConsoleWarCriminal 2017-11-30
It's no smarter or dumber than thinking the Iraqis would treat us as liberators. Almost all western foreign policy experts (and certainly all mainstream ones) think that US needs to throw its weight around in any conflict, as if other countries are just videogames we need to play.
On top of that, there is no accountability for the experts who play the videogame poorly - every since he started posting about DRUMPFFF Bill Kristol is reddit's favorite Jew. Will Landis face any scrutiny for fucking up? Of course not, he'll still be in think tanks and on talk shows. And because journalists are significantly dumber than foreign policy experts, none of them will even think to question his judgement the next time he says we have to get our dick stuck in some sandy bussy.
1 lurker093287h 2017-11-30
Well I kind of agree a little but Landis did get roasted for this massively and some people who have no connection to western geopolitical interests or the mainstream of the US policy establishment were saying similar things to him based off of local reports. There were people who knew the way things were going there but sort of wanted the US to come in and save them (very understandable imo) and they were believed basically.
1 Imgur_Lurker 2017-11-30
During a time they didn't know standing in cold mud full of horse shit with open wounds was a bad thing also
>civil war instead of Civil War
Opinion discarded
When do these scholars think that America learned the Holocaust was happening
1 The_DJSeahorse 2017-11-30
“Civil War” instead of War Between the States or, more accurately, The War of Northern Aggression.
1 Illyana_Rasputin 2017-11-30
Fort Sumter was an inside job.
1 LedinToke 2017-11-30
jews did Fort Sumter
1 ShinzoNagama 2017-11-30
No unionist soldiers died during the "battle"
Really makes you think 🤔
1 ALoudMouthBaby 2017-11-30
Beauregard was one of the first crisis actors.
1 ConsoleWarCriminal 2017-11-30
John Wilkes Booth was literally an actor. How deep does this rabbit hole go?
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-11-30
lol
1 GhostFaceShiller 2017-11-30
The war of "Bawwwww I have to set my niggers free"
1 blacknblue12 2017-11-30
This isnt pol you piece of shit
1 GhostFaceShiller 2017-11-30
This but (unlike my comment) unironically
1 Zozbot 2017-11-30
zoz
1 Zozbot 2017-11-30
zle
1 Zozbot 2017-11-30
zozzle
1 blacknblue12 2017-11-30
nigga
1 AIDS_Fairy 2017-11-30
Let my people go
1 KT-47 2017-11-30
The Virgin Confederate vs The Chad Unionist
1 OniTan 2017-11-30
Confederate: Most men were captured after surrendering like cowards.
Union: Wins war despite suffering heavier losses of men who bravely fight to the death.
1 Wraith_GraveSpell 2017-11-30
Someone please make this meme.
1 The_DJSeahorse 2017-11-30
You have to admit history has pretty much proved us right tho.
1 GhostFaceShiller 2017-11-30
You lost. Get over it.
1 The_DJSeahorse 2017-11-30
Oh I am. These days the prospects of part II is what I’m focused on. AntiFa & the shitskins vs rural & suburban retards. Can’t wait fam.
1 GhostFaceShiller 2017-11-30
"Race war now! Race war now! As long as I don't have to start it or be involved or leave my house"
1 The_DJSeahorse 2017-11-30
Implying our gun caches are for target practice.
Silly subhuman.
1 GhostFaceShiller 2017-11-30
On a scale of 1 to "wears one of those special hats with a safeguard to stop him biting himself", how inbred are you? Is your family tree basically a telegraph pole?
1 The_DJSeahorse 2017-11-30
I’d rate us 14/88 fam.
1 GhostFaceShiller 2017-11-30
So more "The Hills Have Eyes" than "Southern Comfort"?
1 The_DJSeahorse 2017-11-30
I’ve recently been turned on to bussy so at this point Deliverance is probably more appropriate.
1 MG87 2017-11-30
Except you're Ned Beatty
1 better_bot 2017-11-30
So I take it you have absolutely nothing going for you in life if a Civil War sounds good to you.
1 The_DJSeahorse 2017-11-30
Eh, sounds better than posting on r/drama all day. I’ll take it.
1 MG87 2017-11-30
"Us"?
Bitch, no one believes you could win a drunken bar fight let alone a war
1 The_DJSeahorse 2017-11-30
Some of us actually have roots in this country that go back more than 100 years. Bill the Butcher did nothing wrong.
1 Hemingwavy 2017-11-30
I look at places like San Francisco, LA and NY and think yeah they're good but they're no Alabama.
1 The_DJSeahorse 2017-11-30
Me too fam, me too. You couldn't pay me to live in those over-populated shitholes.
1 Hemingwavy 2017-11-30
We definitely don't need no northerns with their fancy pants degrees and genetic diversity.
1 The_DJSeahorse 2017-11-30
You mean bachelors in sociology/gender studies and being a mixed-race mongrel mutt? Yea, good luck with that.
1 PantherChamp 2017-11-30
You're right, it's awful there. Much better to be in Sisterfuck, Arkansas with a perfectly acceptably high infant mortality rate.
1 ConsoleWarCriminal 2017-11-30
I don't feel like checking but I bet SF, LA, and NY all have less black people per capita than Alabama.
You racist mayo.
1 Hemingwavy 2017-11-30
No sir, no mayo here.
1 better_bot 2017-11-30
>First shots fired by the south.
>Muh war of northern aggression
1 The_DJSeahorse 2017-11-30
If you refuse to get off your neighbors property, did he really start it when he removes you?
1 TheGreatWolfRuss 2017-11-30
You think the federal government didn't own their own bases?
1 Clark_Savage_Jr 2017-11-30
You can't like, own property, man.
1 Wraith_GraveSpell 2017-11-30
So the south were Marxists? Explains that they were democrats.
1 The_DJSeahorse 2017-11-30
Unless it’s like, a man, man. That’s cool.
Jk. Blacks aren’t humans.
1 The_DJSeahorse 2017-11-30
Sure. Kinda. But a base in the middle of a foreign harbor isn't really tenable, ya dig? And I'm sure they would've been compensated for it, in time. Or, we could've avoided the whole war if the federal government just agreed to compensate slave owners in exchange for emancipation, you know, like every other Western slave-owning country did. Oh well.
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-11-30
hahahaha you actually believe this
1 The_DJSeahorse 2017-11-30
Worked with all the European powers that had slaves. Urine idiot.
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-11-30
Slavery in the South was an integral part of the region's culture and it was the basis on which the Southern economies were built (which is why the South was such shit at industrialization). It was a completely different situation.
1 The_DJSeahorse 2017-11-30
How very different from the Caribbean Islands and South America. Fascinating insight.
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-11-30
Yes, slavery in the South actually was very different from colonial holdings where the Europeans were more akin to administrators and in far fewer numbers. In the South, slavery was far closer to home, so to speak, and families grew up around slavery unlike those of the European empires. It was not only normalized for the entire population, but also dominated the Southern economy. Slavery did not dominate European economies and they were still free to exploit the resources of their colonies.
1 The_DJSeahorse 2017-11-30
You're right - it was far more humane with lower death rates. Anyways, the deal would've been to ship them to Africa or North Dakota or Mexico or something.
Anyways, stop being a faggot and stop seriousposting. Go sperg out at r/askhistorians or something.
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-11-30
"Far more humane" is a pretty crass way of referring to slavery of any kind. Sure, it was far more humane in the same way that murdering someone with a shot to the head is far more human than torturing them to death.
The South did not have much going for it in terms of its economy aside from cotton. Completely removing a huge portion of the labor force driving the South's prominent export would have never gone over well.
Yeah, I don't know what I was thinking trying to talk to a /pol/tard.
1 Fucking_That_Chicken 2017-11-30
well, no, it was less industrialized because cotton was significantly more profitable
still the tenth most industrialized country in the world at the time of secession, though. slavery worked as well in their factories as it does in the modern third world
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-11-30
This is a part of it. Southern plantation owners had a cheap, abundant source of labor to support the South's cotton industry. This abundance of labor meant that there was no impetus on Southern aristocrats to invest in building infrastructure and mechanization. Why would they need to? They were already raking in cash hand over fist.
There are some interesting theories about the beginnings of industrialization in Europe, how it was driven by the shortage of labor following the massive casualties of the Black Plague. In order to make up for the loss of so many laborers, European countries were driven to find alternative means to achieve necessary production. I think there's a similar (inverse) case to be made regarding the South.
1 Pepperglue 2017-11-30
Rebel scum.
Lincoln's reaction is absolutely justified. If my neighbor lay siege at my property and tell me to go away, I feel I am perfectly justified to fight to preserve myself.
1 The_DJSeahorse 2017-11-30
I don't think a shitty 1BR apartment is worth dying over. But I'm not you, so maybe it is worth you dying over.
1 Trumputinazisis 2017-11-30
Neither is your double wide trailer, but you'd probably treat it like the Alamo if the boys in blue wanted to shut down your pseudoephedrine cook
1 MG87 2017-11-30
This is what toothless sister fuckers actually believe
1 respaaaaaj 2017-11-30
I think you mean the war of southern treason.
1 SpotNL 2017-11-30
Oh they definitely knew. They at least knew that dirt and wounds don't go together well.
1 aqouta 2017-11-30
The poles and Russian people had it about as bad as the joos tbqhwyf
1 Hemingwavy 2017-11-30
Listen mate. I didn't need any additional context. Trump has proven that you can conduct international diplomacy in 140 characters and I see no reason why you would need more than 280 for academic research.
1 Imgur_Lurker 2017-11-30
REEEE DADDY
Must be hard melting down all the Time, why don't you go to Walmart and buy some ammo like the people who melted down when Obama was president.
1 ConsoleWarCriminal 2017-11-30
(Guns scare them)
1 hairformen 2017-11-30
I think the Allies had learned Jews were being systematically killed by 1942
1 ucstruct 2017-11-30
What the fuck do you call sending 90 fucking divisions across an ocean?
1 ALoudMouthBaby 2017-11-30
It was pretty early on that the Allied powers came to be aware that something was up. The mass deportations of Jews from occupied areas was no secret and more than a few people escaped the camps to talk about what was going on. The thing was its not like the Allies could just reach out and stop it. The only thing to do really was continue to fight and win the war.
1 RollBread 2017-11-30
I have never heard of a Civil war scholar who had a liberal arts degree before.
I wonder if this guy is a feminist who has never had a girlfriend before too.
1 ChipChippersonAMA 2017-11-30
Yo it's an older Conan O'Brien lol
1 SethRichOrDieTryin 2017-11-30
I thought soyboy Roger Goodell, but I can see Conan too.
1 newcomer_ts 2017-11-30
Me:
I need to start my own Tweeter….
1 OniTan 2017-11-30
Is this a troll or is he on drugs?
1 OnlyRacistOnReddit 2017-11-30
Yes
1 subpoutine 2017-11-30
He’s simply another garden-variety IR lefty who defends the regime’s crimes and Iranian adventurism to cater to the edgelord failures in /sg/ and /r/syriancivilwar who have daddy issues with liberal internationalism.
1 rwaeh_ 2017-11-30
How did you know that I was formerly part of /Sg/, a lefty and a saa supporter :(?
1 Woofers_MacBarkFloof 2017-11-30
I can one up you. I'm still in /SG/
1 rwaeh_ 2017-11-30
Thanks :) I was part of the telegram for a while but I was mostly HQ'd in the twitter group.
1 subpoutine 2017-11-30
You mod SCW, you Ba'athist cuck.
Unless the shabiha are onto me in which case I'd like to personally gobble down Dr. Landis's wrinkly balls to thank him for his witty and pertinent commentary.
1 rwaeh_ 2017-11-30
Allah, Souriya, Bashar O Bas.
1 subpoutine 2017-11-30
This but Zionistly.
1 rwaeh_ 2017-11-30
Yahweh, IsraEl, Netanyahu O Shekels
1 Redactor0 2017-11-30
I think he's a guy who really is an expert on the country but he's gotten to close to it (I wasn't joking about his Alawi wife) so he can't be impartial.
1 OniTan 2017-11-30
When you tryna be impartial but dat Alawite pussy too good.
1 Death_Trolley 2017-11-30
So, the two bloody civil wars were alike insofar as they were bloody civil wars. Thanks Mr. History!
1 OnlyRacistOnReddit 2017-11-30
That's what got me. I feel like someone should ask "OK, people die in civil wars... So exactly WTF did you tweet that?"
1 masodeq 2017-11-30
To counter MSM Assad is so evil!
1 lickedTators 2017-11-30
What a retarded scholar. 95% of the people Lincoln killed were mayos. 4% of the rest were vampires. How could Lincoln be worse?
1 WistopherWalken 2017-11-30
Sounds like a win on both fronts.
1 Karmaisforsuckers 2017-11-30
The only thing Licoln did wrong was not executing every single confederate soldier for treason and imposing strict controls on the south ala Japan after WW2.
Every single thing that has caused the decline of America is a direct consequence of that failure
1 OnlyRacistOnReddit 2017-11-30
There were some pretty harsh controls applied to the south after the Civil War, it's part of the reason Alabama, Mississippi and the other inland southern states lag so far behind the rest of the nation.
1 Karmaisforsuckers 2017-11-30
Not harsh enough, obviously. They lag behind because they dull of spoiled coddled retards.
1 subpoutine 2017-11-30
And also some white people.
1 dexceit 2017-11-30
Dude you spend too much time worrying about "le inbred fundie republicunts" Like did you get raped by one or something? It seems you're really desperate to prove your superiority.
1 Karmaisforsuckers 2017-11-30
Why are you so defensive?
1 dexceit 2017-11-30
I'm not defensive. I was just looking through your comment history and just about every 4th comment or so is you unironically bitching about what I described above.
1 Karmaisforsuckers 2017-11-30
You sound really defensive
1 dexceit 2017-11-30
I mean, for me to be defensive I would have to be a republican from the south.
1 Karmaisforsuckers 2017-11-30
No, you just have to identify with them
1 dexceit 2017-11-30
I guess I do in some ways, although your seriousposts are so retarded I would probably feel compelled to comment on them even if I didn't. Btw, you never answered the original question. Hatred isn't born out of nothing.
1 Karmaisforsuckers 2017-11-30
So I was right again
1 dexceit 2017-11-30
Pls answer question
1 Karmaisforsuckers 2017-11-30
I don't converse with those who identify with degenerate subhuman scum
Dont speak to me or my son again
1 dexceit 2017-11-30
Le zinger meme reply to avoid answering the question! Nice one dude.
1 ALoudMouthBaby 2017-11-30
Nah, Im pretty sure its because while the rest of the nation was developing stable, modern economies these states relies on uneducated slave labor to farm cash crops for what basically amounted to an aristocratic minority who ran the regions with little regard to the well being of people outside their class. Even after the end of slavery that group hung onto power for a long ass time and continued to fail to reinvest in institutions that make the states a decent places to live.
1 UmmahSultan 2017-11-30
Hence the need to confiscate all of their wealth at the end of the war. It doesn't even matter how it's redistributed, as long as the aristocratic class is eliminated.
1 ALoudMouthBaby 2017-11-30
I dont think confiscation was even necessary, just barring them from public office would be enough to break their hold on power. Political at first then later economic. An aristocratic class like the Antebellum South had is not compatible with democracy.
1 SlavophilesAnonymous 2017-11-30
That sounds like a great way to turn the Civil War into “the Dzhungar War, but in America”.
1 ConsoleWarCriminal 2017-11-30
Oh fuck can you imagine anime with southern belle drawls? Literally perfect waifus. Gat dang Lincoln really screwed the pooch here.
1 StingAuer 2017-11-30
The Slavers stopped being Americans when they declared themselves not Americans.
You can't kill your own people if they're not your people.
1 strathmeyer 2017-11-30
In this round of the oppression Olympics we have civil war. Who will win? Not the people.