Page #1
Pages: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 ...#99
New Comment Rating: 0 Similar topics: 1.Cum isn't stored in the balls!!! 2.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF 3.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF II 4.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF III 5.Is this about you 🤷♂️, those that live in glass houses should not throw stones. Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
only registered users can see external links
Indeed a lot doesn't make sense. I would not say that this ex-trumper is much useful to question this event, but with the help of ChatGPT, I came up with a list that it accumulated from reputable investigative journalism sources, and is verifiably based on Official / primary law enforcement sources.
🧾 Legitimate confirmed issues (Butler incident)
* Shooter gained access to a rooftop within effective firing range of the rally
* Perimeter security did not fully prevent high-elevation vantage point access
* Threat was not identified and neutralized before the first shot was fired
* Delays occurred in detection, escalation, and response to the shooter
* Coordination issues existed between Secret Service and local law enforcement elements
* Breakdown in real-time communication and situational awareness across security teams
* Post-incident reviews identified a cascade of preventable security failures
* Accountability actions were limited and became a subject of official and congressional criticism
If we compare the aftermath of the assassination attempt on Trump with the 1981 Reagan assassination attempt, there are very significant differences:
* Immediate response: Shooter was caught on the spot; no ambiguity about what happened
* Unified investigation: FBI + Secret Service acted immediately with a clear suspect and clear facts
* Clear accountability: Led to formal internal review and major long-term security reforms
* No competing narratives: Public understanding of the event stabilized quickly
Even among Trump’s own supporters, there has been visible skepticism and calls for further investigation into the Butler assassination attempt, while Trump himself has not kept it as a sustained political focus and has at times signaled that the issue should not be dwelled on.
This stands out because Trump’s political communication style has typically emphasized:
* repeatedly amplifying events that reinforce his political narrative
* keeping high-salience incidents in the public conversation for extended periods
* using major events as long-term rhetorical leverage
In that context, the relatively limited ongoing emphasis on this incident is not typical of his usual communication pattern, where major events involving him tend to be politically extended rather than deprioritized.
Where the shame lies in the incompetence of law enforcement to protect a candidate.
ex-Trumpers than liberals and lefties who believe that there is something ongoing other than what is the official story. A full hoax is far-fetched to me, but Trump is sure acting unlike himself. He loves to praise himself in a nauseating way, taking credit for things
that are not true, but he has abandoned the only occurrence in which he looked brave
to everyone. He is incapable of that kind of humility, so I think he has something to hide.
Your political side has turned its followers into conspiracy thinkers.
This can turn against them when they are in power.
Also, there is lot of shit going on in this regime that cannot bear the light of day.
- At least half of the Epstein files being buried.
- Facts around Epstein's death not aligning with suicide.
- Trump's Indictments getting or attempted to be buried (why? there was no case, right?)
- Trump pardoning lots of white collar criminals who donate to him.
- Trump and his family getting fully into crypto scam companies.
- Very obvious insider trading going on, every time just before Trump announces something like tariffs or international aggression.
- Trump doing everything that Putin wants, like Putin owns him.
- Details around Charlie Kirk's assassination getting even more suspicious.
At some point even some of his most loyal followers cannot suppress this anymore.
only registered users can see external links
here is another wacked out woman.
12 kids!
only registered users can see external links
Who is covering the cost of all these kids? 12 kids? No way that woman is working. Who is covering the cost of the kid of a 14 and 15 year old that aint even out of high school yet?
programs to help the poor are not designed for deliberate acts like this.
These people are wacked,
(One of our friends just got scammed, and I'm trying to help)
Someone will call you on your mobile phone, to invite you to a Zoom call.
If they already have information from you, it could sound believable.
Then they say: "I have just sent you a code for the Zoom call, can you repeat it?"
Than they can get into your WhatsApp, because it is the verification SMS-code
for WhatsApp.
Then they will send everyone you know scam calls asking for money, or something.
And they have all the phone numbers of your contacts, to try the scam on them too.
It took me an hour of 'interrogation', to figure out that she gave that SMS-code
to the scammer. With the help of ChatGPT, I figured out the rest.
The only thing I could do is email WhatsApp support to block the account.
The scammers will block the SMS-verification, by trying it over and over.
Maybe she gets one chance to get it back, 12 hours from last tried.
She is now calling everyone she knows to warn them, to not trust her messages.
It's hours of your life that you can't get back.
However, WhatsApp has turned into a vital communication tool for many people.
Personally, I use my phone as a phone at maximum once per month, and the rest
of the time it's a WhatsApp, email, banking and trading and navigation device.
WhatsApp is just too damn vulnerable to these simple scams, they offer no secure procedure to restore an account on another device when it has been scammed,
and their 'service' is very slow to respond.
Why are we trusting these big companies, who only think about their bottom line,
to handle vital communication tools? They should at least be controlled more.
Regulation is important. If they won't make it secure, they should lose it.
(I'm not saying directly controlled by the government, but handled like most vital utilities are handled, in the common sense part of the modern world.)
They occasionally send simulations of phishing emails to everyone. If you then click on the "phishing alert" button, you get a message "Thanks for being vigilant and not being tricked by our phishing simulation.".
I agree that it would be safer, but it would be damn annoying if you had to use Authenticator every time you wanted to check WhatsApp.
Still, it should support a blocking and recovery option in case of a scam or hack.
We sent 2 emails to support@whatsapp.com 2 days ago, and they have not reacted yet.
only registered users can see external links
In 2006, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) created a formal definition.
A planet must:
1) Orbit the Sun
2) Be spherical due to its own gravity
3) Have “cleared its orbital neighborhood” (meaning it dominates its orbit gravitationally)
Pluto meets the first two criteria, but not the third. It shares its orbital region with many other Kuiper Belt objects and doesn’t gravitationally dominate its neighborhood.
So Pluto was reclassified as a 'dwarf planet', along with objects like Eris.
I would say that this only strengthens it's 'Disney status'.
only registered users can see external links
And i had always heard the story of Abe waking up from a drunk saying " I freed who?"
“ Based on modern standards, Abraham Lincoln held views that would be considered racist, as he did not believe in social or political equality between black and white people during most of his career. However, he was a staunch opponent of slavery, believing it was morally wrong, and his views on racial equality evolved significantly toward the end of his life,, as noted in the Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Library & Museums.Key Aspects of Lincoln's Views on Race:Views on Inequality: During the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln explicitly stated his opposition to allowing black people to vote, serve on juries, or intermarry with white people. He expressed a belief in the superiority of the white race at that time.Support for Colonization: For much of his career, Lincoln favored "colonization," which was the idea of sending freed slaves to establish colonies in Africa or the Caribbean rather than integrating them into American society.Opposition to Slavery: Despite his views on equality, Lincoln held a consistent, long-term belief that slavery was a profound moral, social, and political evil.Evolution of Beliefs: During the Civil War, his perspective changed. By 1864–1865, he began advocating for limited black suffrage (voting rights) for those who were "very intelligent" or had served in the Union Army.Historical Context: Many historians argue that judging Lincoln by 21st-century standards is historically inaccurate, noting that his views were typical for a white American of the mid-19th century, yet he was still more progressive than many of his contemporaries regarding the morality of slavery.”
And, so, I made my own deductions. BTW, the Lincoln/Douglas debates were well covered in Jr High school American history classes circa 1960’s. I guess you were not around then or your formal education lacked those chapters.
Those debates were between the future President of the United States and the future President of the Confederacy. Not important enough?
by your side of politics. It's when America fought for freedom and independence from British rule, by a KING and when that new independent country fought for FREEDOM FOR ALL PEOPLE, while the South wanted to maintain slavery.
Your side calls that "Critical Race Theory", but it's just HISTORY.
only registered users can see external links
Laws banning these topics exist in more than a quarter of U.S. states.
"Teachers don't know how to interpret them, affecting day-to-day history lessons."
Actually, it means that they cannot tell the TRUTH, if they follow those laws.
So rather than being forced to LIE, they just stop teaching about the topics.
And that's exactly how it was intended; right-wing teacher teach lies to their kids and liberal teachers just avoid the topic, to not get into trouble.
It's the authoritarian playbook.
Do some actual historical research, instead of parroting lies.
You are clearly showing that you are just choosing to believe what you
find comfortable to believe, instead of being interested in the truth.
These websites provide actual historical evidence, for horrible abuse.
Library of Congress – “Born in Slavery”
only registered users can see external links
Project Gutenberg – Slave Narratives (free books)
only registered users can see external links
Gilder Lehrman Institute (primary documents)
only registered users can see external links
No one is denying that there were Africans complicit.
When there is a demand, there are always suppliers.
Overall reality:
Slavery in the U.S. was a system of forced labor backed by violence. Enslaved people were legally treated as property, not citizens, which meant owners had broad control over their lives.
Work conditions:
Worked from sunrise to sunset, often 12–16 hours a day
Very little rest; work continued even during illness or pregnancy
Children were often put to work as young as 5–7
Living conditions:
Small, crude cabins with dirt floors
Overcrowded; multiple people sharing one room
Limited clothing, often one or two outfits per year
Food was minimal (cornmeal, pork scraps, whatever they could grow)
Violence and control:
Violence wasn’t occasional, it was built into the system.
Common punishments included:
Whipping (often severe and repeated)
Beatings with tools or sticks
Branding or mutilation in extreme cases
Shackling or confinement
Enslavers used violence to:
Enforce productivity
Punish attempts to escape
Instill fear in others
Sexual violence, especially against enslaved women, was also widespread and largely unpunished.
Family separation:
One of the most devastating parts:
Families could be sold apart at any time
Children were frequently separated from parents
Marriages were not legally recognized
Many formerly enslaved people described this as one of the most traumatic aspects of slavery.
Health and mortality:
Conditions led to serious health consequences.
Common issues:
Malnutrition
Disease (cholera, dysentery, tuberculosis)
Injuries from overwork or punishment
Medical care was minimal and often experimental or neglectful.
Life expectancy:
Life expectancy varied, but overall it was much lower than for white Americans.
In the early 1800s, average life expectancy at birth for enslaved people is often estimated around 20–30 years (heavily affected by infant mortality)
Those who survived childhood could live longer, sometimes into their 40s or beyond
Infant mortality rates were extremely high
On particularly brutal plantations (like rice or sugar), death rates were even worse due to harsh environments.
How people died:
Common causes of death included:
Disease and infection
Exhaustion from overwork
Malnutrition
Violence or punishment
Poor living conditions
In some regions (especially Caribbean sugar plantations), death rates were so high that populations had to be constantly replenished through the slave trade. In the U.S., the population grew more through birth, but conditions were still severe.
Important nuance:
Not every enslaved person had the exact same experience. Conditions varied depending on:
Location (Deep South vs. Upper South)
Type of labor
Individual enslaver
But across these variations, coercion, lack of freedom, and violence were consistent features of the system.
You are describing exceptions. The general situation was BRUTAL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where the slaves came from:
Most enslaved people were taken from West and Central African societies like those in present-day Nigeria, Ghana, and Angola.
Life there (before enslavement):
Lived in organized communities and kingdoms such as the Oyo Empire or Kingdom of Kongo
Mostly farmers, traders, craftsmen
Had families, land, culture, religion, and personal freedom
Some regions had cities and long-distance trade networks
They were not living in chaos or constant misery, they had structured societies and normal human lives.
What changed in America:
Lost freedom completely (treated as property)
Forced into hard labor under threat of violence
Families could be separated at any time
No legal rights, autonomy, or control over their lives
Bottom line:
Even if living standards varied, being enslaved in the U.S. meant losing your freedom, safety, and family by force. That’s not “better off” by any meaningful historical or human standard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How people were captured:
Most enslaved people were taken through:
1. Warfare and raids
Armies or raiders attacked villages and took captives
This was common in regions around states like the Oyo Empire and Kingdom of Kongo
2. Kidnapping
Smaller-scale abductions by raiders or traders
People could be seized while traveling or working
3. Punishment or debt (less common for Atlantic slavery)
Some were enslaved for crimes or debt, then sold onward
“Sold by their own people?” — what that really means. This phrase is partly true but misleading.
Africa was (and is) made up of many different ethnic groups, languages, and political states.
Captives were usually taken from rival groups, not their own community.
So it wasn’t like neighbors casually selling neighbors—it was often conflict between different societies
Also important:
Some African rulers and traders did participate in selling captives.
But this system expanded massively because of European demand and weapons trade.
The bigger picture:
The transatlantic slave trade worked as a system:
Europeans (from countries like Portugal and United Kingdom) created huge demand for labor in the Americas
They generally did not capture people inland themselves
Instead, they bought captives on the coast from intermediaries
This demand:
Encouraged more warfare and raiding
Destabilized regions
Turned people into commodities on a large scale
Bottom line:
Many enslaved people were indeed captured by other Africans, often in war or raids
But they were usually outsiders or enemies, not “their own people” in a close sense
And the entire system was driven and massively expanded by European demand for enslaved labor
If you bought a tractor, would you run it without oil?
Would you try to plow solid rock?
No, you would take care of the machine because it was expensive and you need it to make a living.
"In 1860, a Virginia trader valued 20-year-old slaves as “extra men” and “extra women,” worth $1,500-$1,600 and $1,325-$1,400, respectively. A second tier of high-value souls were known as “No. 1 men,” worth $1,400-$1,500, and “No. 1 women,” worth $1,275-$1,325.
Sad as it may be that men bought men as we do machines, that was the reality at that time. Average cost of a slave was 1500 bucks! in 1860, that was alot of money when the average southern males wages was .16 cents a hour.
They were fed enough to stay alive, which was similar to pig feed.
Slaves were indeed expensive, so that was an incentive to get the maximum value out of them. That means working them as hard as they could survive, while spending as little as possible to keep them alive. Their wellbeing did not add any value, while whipping them into submission was free.
The working class was indeed exploited too. There are some differences;
they were allowed to go and the employer is not allowed to torture them,
when they didn't want to work anymore.
If you bought a tractor, would you run it without oil?
Would you try to plow solid rock?
No, you would take care of the machine because it was expensive and you need it to make a living.as the info below explains, slave were costly investments. Why would you beat a slave,reducing the persons ablity to do the desired task?? does not compute.
"In 1860, a Virginia trader valued 20-year-old slaves as “extra men” and “extra women,” worth $1,500-$1,600 and $1,325-$1,400, respectively. A second tier of high-value souls were known as “No. 1 men,” worth $1,400-$1,500, and “No. 1 women,” worth $1,275-$1,325.
Sad as it may be that men bought men as we do machines, that was the reality at that time. Average cost of a slave was 1500 bucks! in 1860, that was alot of money when the average southern males wages was .16 cents a hour.
Oh, and slavery was NOT just in the south,
only registered users can see external links
you could find it in new york as well as other states
So when you say the confederates were just fighting to keep slaves, why would the north oppose that when they were getting even richer from them??
That is what blows holes in some of the narratives you follow. common sense. the civil war started because of taxation of cotton sent to europe instead of up north. slavery was added in later. Do your research.
PLEASE EXCUSE THE CAPS. THEY ARE USED EXCLUSIVELY TO CONTRAST YOUR WORDS/ARGUMENT.
-------------------------
it's what they fail to teach when they teach the so called "truth". Slaves were not abused once they were here and on the farms.
JUST BEING KEPT AS SLAVES IS ABUSE. PHART, DON'T YOU REALIZE THAT?
many are buried in the family cemetery's of the folks that owned them.
DID BEING BURIED IN THE FAMILY CEMETERY MADE IT ALRIGHT TO BE KEPT AS A SLAVE?
Many,once freed, stayed where they were because they were safe,fed and employed. NONE of which they had back home in africa.
STAYING WHERE THEY WERE KEPT AS A SLAVE, AFTER GIVEN FREEDOM, WAS A CHOICE AND THAT WAS OKAY.
and the liberals don't teach the simple fact their own race sold the slaves to the ship owners to bring here. teach it all if you are going to teach it.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU WENT TO SCHOOL BUT EVERY SCHOOL CHILD IN MY NECK OF THE WOODS WAS TAUGHT THAT, YES, THERE WERE TRIBAL SITUATIONS IN AFRICA WHERE THE LOCAL TRIBES WOULD MAKE WAR AGAINST OTHER TRIBES AND CAPTURED HOSTAGES AND SOLD THEM TO SLAVE TRADERS.
Apply some common sense
If you bought a tractor, would you run it without oil?
Would you try to plow solid rock?
No, you would take care of the machine because it was expensive and you need it to make a living.
APPLY SOME COMMON SENSE? YOU APPLY SOME COMMON SENSE. LIKEING A HUMAN BEING TO A TRACTOR OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF MACHINERY IS PURE, UNADULTERATED RACISM.
as the info below explains, slave were costly investments. Why would you beat a slave,reducing the persons ablity to do the desired task?? does not compute.
AND, YET, THE FOREMAN WENT AROUND WITH A WHIP. THEY USED THE WHIPS TO PUNISH THE SLAVES FOR NOT WORKING FAST OR BECAUSE THE SLAVE BROKE SOME RULE. WOULD YOU AGREE TO WORK FOR FREE UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS?
"In 1860, a Virginia trader valued 20-year-old slaves as “extra men” and “extra women,” worth $1,500-$1,600 and $1,325-$1,400, respectively. A second tier of high-value souls were known as “No. 1 men,” worth $1,400-$1,500, and “No. 1 women,” worth $1,275-$1,325.
Sad as it may be that men bought men as we do machines, that was the reality at that time.
SO THAT MADE IT ALRIGHT? THE FARMER NEEDED WORKERS AND DIDN'T WANT TO PAY WAGES SO THEY ALLOWED SLAVE TRADERS TO KIDNAP THESE UNFORTUNATE PEOPLE, TRANSPORT THEM HALF WAY ACROSS THE WORLD, AND SELL THEM TO A FARMER LIKE LIVESTOCK?
Average cost of a slave was 1500 bucks! in 1860, that was alot of money when the average southern males wages was .16 cents a hour.
IF THAT'S PART OF YOUR ARGUMENT THAT SLAVERY WAS OKAY THEN YOU SHOULD ALSO FACTOR IN THAT PAYING A LABORER $0.16/HOUR WOULD HAVE COST THE FARMER HUGE AMOUNTS OF PAYROLL MONEY. FIGURE IT OUT. TWENTY LABORERS WORKING A 50 HOUR WEEK WOULD HAVE COST THE FARME $6366/ WEEK IN TODAY'S MONEY, AND THAT'S IN A SMALL COTTON PLANTATION WITH 20 SLAVES.
JUST THE SAVINGS OF ONE WEEK WOULD HAVE MADE IT POSSIBLE TO OWN 3 OR 4 SLAVES FOR LIFE.
Oh, and slavery was NOT just in the south,
you could find it in new york as well as other states
AH, SLAVERY WAS IN OTHER AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES IN 1860. WELL, THAT MADE IT ALRIGHT.
So when you say the confederates were just fighting to keep slaves, why would the north oppose that when they were getting even richer from them??
PEOPLE IN THE NORTH DENOUCED SLAVERY AS AN ABOMINABLE PRACTICE. THE FACT THAT SOME NORTHENERS PRACTICED SLAVERY DID NOT MAKE IT RIGHT AND, BY HUGE AMOUNTS, THE SOUTH WAS WHERE SLAVERY FLOURISHED.
That is what blows holes in some of the narratives you follow. common sense. the civil war started because of taxation of cotton sent to europe instead of up north. slavery was added in later. Do your research.
NO, YOU DO THE RESEARCH.
THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR WAS THE INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY, SPECIFICALLY THE DEEP POLITICAL AND SOCIAL DIVISIONS REGARDING ITS EXPANSION INTO NEW WESTERN TERRITORIES AND ITS OVERALL MORALITY
SOUTHERN STATES SECEDED TO PROTECT THE INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY, WHICH WAS CENTRAL TO THEIR ECONOMY AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE.
Southern states seceded to protect the institution of slavery, which was central to their economy and social structure.
--------------------------------------- added after 112 seconds
That last part came from the internet and it's in every search engine you can access. PHART, you are wrong in your beliefs.
I am NOT CONDONEING the way things were done at that time. I am trying to get YOU to understand that was the thought process at THAT TIME. Right wrong, to late to fix the past.
It is not racist to explain the thought process's of others in the past.
"Robert E. Lee viewed slavery as a "moral & political evil," yet he believed it was a necessary institution for maintaining order, holding views typical of a 19th-century Southern slaveholder. He claimed to believe that the discipline of slavery was beneficial to Black people and that emancipation should be left in God's hands, opposing abolitionist efforts."
Notice the words, slavery was a moral & political evil.
I am NOT CONDONEING the way things were done at that time. I am trying to get YOU to understand that was the thought process at THAT TIME. Right wrong, to late to fix the past.
It is not racist to explain the thought process's of others in the past.
Good instinct to check the source—because that page is a clear example of a fringe or revisionist interpretation, not mainstream history.
What that website actually claims
The page you linked explicitly argues:
“The tariff…was the sole cause of the war”
Slavery was basically a political trick or distraction
So yes—your friend is repeating that site pretty directly.
Why historians reject that explanation
The problem isn’t that tariffs never mattered—they did at times. The problem is that the site’s core claim contradicts primary evidence from the 1860s.
1. It ignores what the seceding states themselves said
The most important sources are the official declarations of secession. These are not later interpretations—they’re statements written by the people who started the war.
They overwhelmingly point to slavery, not tariffs.
Example (short quote):
Mississippi: “identified with the institution of slavery”
That’s about as explicit as it gets.
2. It conflicts with the actual political conflicts of the time
The biggest national crises leading up to the American Civil War were about slavery:
Expansion into new territories (e.g. Kansas–Nebraska Act)
Violent संघर्ष like “Bleeding Kansas”
Court rulings like Dred Scott
The election of Abraham Lincoln
All of these revolved around slavery—not export taxes on cotton.
Mainstream summaries consistently describe slavery as central to the conflict and political tension .
3. The tariff argument doesn’t match the timeline
The biggest tariff crisis (the Nullification Crisis) happened 30 years before the war
By 1860, tariffs were not the dominant national issue
There’s no strong evidence that taxing cotton exports to Europe triggered secession
4. The site itself shows red flags
Even without outside knowledge, the page has warning signs:
It claims all historians are wrong (huge red flag)
It offers a single-cause explanation for a complex event
It suggests a kind of conspiracy among historians
It provides little engagement with mainstream scholarship
That doesn’t automatically make something false—but in history, that pattern is typical of non-credible or ideologically driven sources.
Bottom line
The website is promoting a minority, non-accepted theory that:
contradicts primary sources
contradicts decades of historical research
and oversimplifies the causes of the war
The strongest evidence we have—what people at the time actually wrote and argued—shows that slavery was central from the beginning, not something “added later.”
The difference is that they respected the new laws and the South didn't.
"why would the north oppose that when they were getting even richer from them??" Any evidence for that claim?
Here’s what the historical record shows:
1. Southern states said explicitly why they seceded
When states like South Carolina, Mississippi, and Texas left the Union, they published declarations explaining their reasons. These documents repeatedly and clearly identify the preservation of slavery as the main cause.
Mississippi’s declaration: “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery…”
2. The political conflict was about slavery’s expansion
The major national disputes leading up to the war—like the Missouri Compromise and the Kansas–Nebraska Act—were about whether slavery would expand into new territories.
3. The election of Abraham Lincoln triggered secession
Lincoln opposed the expansion of slavery. His election in 1860 led Southern states to secede before he even took office, fearing slavery would be restricted.
4. Economic issues existed—but were secondary
There were longstanding disputes over tariffs (taxes on imports), especially earlier in the 1800s during events like the Nullification Crisis. But by 1860, tariffs were not the main driver of secession, and there’s no solid evidence that taxing cotton exports to Europe sparked the war.
5. Slavery was not “added later”
Slavery was already deeply embedded in Southern society and economy. It was the foundation of the plantation system, especially for cotton production, and the core issue dividing North and South for decades.
Bottom line:
The idea that the Civil War started over cotton taxes and only later involved slavery is a misconception. The strongest primary sources—from the seceding states themselves—show that protecting slavery was the central cause from the beginning.
I feel Anannas is smart enough to understand what I am trying to do moreso than you.
Cat, your approach to my words makes me feel like you are the kind of person who would run over the mail man for bring ing you a bill you thought was to high.
"the thought process's of the time slavery was in place" was simple:
"We can exploit people for our own profit, so let's do that!".
You are OK with it from that period, because you are OK with it now.
You are very consistent in the opinion that people have no rights and their value is only in how much they serve the powerful and wealthy elites.
I will never understand WHY you have this opinion, other than you were born into it and you have listened to people who tell you this all your life.
I never felt exploited by my employer. I did a job, I was paid and provided insurance and retirement and a wage for my service. of course more salary woulda been great but a persons lifestyle just goes up with the salary and enough is never enough.
If you feel exploited on your job, it's your fault.You took the job.
However, there is something very similar to slavery nowadays,
like the children working in cobalt mines. You were OK with that.
You whitewashed that as them having a job, which is better than starving.
The same can be said about slaves, because everything is better than starving. That's how you sugar-coat slavery and horrible exploitation.
Your feelings about the matter isn't representative.
When a corporation is making billions of dollars in profit, while all their employees are struggling to survive, that's exploitation.
I would know better, if you had ever supported people having rights.
If you think that there is no such thing, than all exploitation, including slavery, is OK.
If you understand their thought process, which you said now twice, please describe their thought process.
I don't feel exploited on my job. That's mostly because I have a good education and I live in The Netherlands. People with poor educations
are exploited in my country too. I do feel my employer exploits people, but that's mostly related to pharmaceutical companies making too much profit on healthcare.
Everyone is different and Ananas has his unique way of expressing his views. I’m not him so, naturally, I won’t sound like him. Ananas is brilliant both in his delivery of an argument and understanding the many things that get discussed here.
Don’t get me wrong. I understand your intent. I’m just not a person that can ignore BS when I hear it.
I think you should know, the last time I had a relationship or an affair with a mailman was in my teens. I don’t have any reason to blame my financial troubles on my mailman. On the other hand, I’ve chatted extensively through the years with you, and I feel comfortable enough to know that you are what I believe you are and that your exit strategy has always been, “It’s not what I believe, it’s how I perceive it. “
only registered users can see external links
over 2014–2023:
79 were pedestrians
83 were occupants of other vehicles
38 were school bus occupants
Why are they adding that the bus driver KNOWINGLY drove the bus into danger. I see kids shouting afterwards; no evidence that she intentionally ignored the crossing arms coming down.
There is always a danger in traffic situations.
If they are brought to school by car, by sleepy or stressed parents,
they're probably in more danger of not getting to school alive.
In my country, on September 20th 2018, 4 kids died, 1 kid and the driver were badly injured, after an electrically powered cargo bike-like vehicle, a Stint, ended up under the closed level crossing barriers and was subsequently hit by a train. Our media didn't immediately accuse the driver, they called for a big investigation. This was thoroughly investigated, but it provided no conclusive evidence of a defect or human error that directly explains the crash. However, the Dutch authorities, including the Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate (ILT) and TNO, still concluded that the vehicle was not sufficiently safe for transporting passengers, with possible issues related to braking and controls. The Dutch government suspended the approval of the Stint for public road use, and it was later permanently withdrawn from approval. This means that Stints are no longer allowed on public roads in the Netherlands.
In the years following, the Public Prosecution Service (Openbaar Ministerie, OM) initiated criminal proceedings against the manufacturers and responsible parties. In late 2025, prosecutors reportedly demanded prison sentences and fines for two company directors, alleging they provided misleading safety information.
The driver of the Stint was not prosecuted, as investigations concluded she bore no blame.
In the US, you just scapegoat the driver and their supervisor, on just the opinion of a sheriff. The local bus route of that school district is changed, and nothing else happens. Does that make school buses any safer?
However, children are supposed be safe, once they're IN school.
In the same period, ~507 people were killed in school shootings.
That doesn’t happen anywhere 'civilized' other than in the US.
And if she did, how will you make sure that no one can do that again?
I found reports that she didn't broke the crossing arms off with the bus.
How then can the bus be clipped by the train?
How much time is there between the crossing arms closing and the train passing?
How about having crossing arms that actually do the job.
We have regulation that is aiming to prevent situations like this, and railroad crossings
need to be made safe, even for lunatics like this:
What I'm trying to teach you, is that every time something like this happens
in your country, you just look for a perpetrator or a scapegoat,
so you don't have to actually change anything. Then nothing will improve.
When something stupid happens in the company I work for, the last thing that I'm allowed to do, is to blame the person who did the stupid thing. That's because then we won't prevent anyone else doing that stupid thing too. In aviation, they studied accidents that were blamed on human error. In 90% of those cases, there is some other cause that takes the blame away from the employees; it's system causes disguised as human error. In about 5% of the cases, it's genuine individual error (non-systemic), and only in ~1% there is intentional violation or sabotage. I can almost guarantee you that in this case there was something systemic going on, because she had a clean record.
My colleagues and I have to actually IMPROVE something, to prevent anything like it happening or being done again. That's difficult, but it's the only way that actually works.
If SHE was the CAUSE, then what is the SOLUTION?
Are old white woman now not allowed to drive buses anymore?
Do you think it's an old white woman driving the car in the picture?
You just told me how many old people are driving vehicles,
because 'young people don't want to do it anymore'.
So? What jobs can old people still do, that are safe?
You need to let them have some jobs, if you end retirement.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
New Comment Go to top