Every now and then the stupidity of liberals just gets so excessive that it’s hard to fit it into a single post while analyzing the insanity. This is a collection of some of the recent insufferable idiocy of the group known as democrats. I just had to let this out. Some of them you’ve undoubtedly seen, most have been ignored by the left wing media.
Those dumb ass conservative rurals again.
Jerry Brown Blasts ‘Rural Areas’ for Not Liking Gas Tax That Disproportionately Harms Them
California Gov. Jerry Brown (D.) on Sunday blamed rural Californians for not wanting higher taxes to help fight climate change.
Chuck Todd, host of MSNBC’s “Meet the Press,” asked about how California’s new gas tax hurts rural residents who need cars because they don’t have access to public transportation. He cited an article from CityLab, which said the gas tax “punishes people for not having access to transit options,” but Brown bowled right over Todd’s research and blamed rural Californians for not being on board with his agenda.
“You won your gas tax fight, but rural Californians didn’t like it,” Todd said.
“No, they don’t. They don’t like a lot of things. They voted against housing bonds, they voted for the Republican Cox who didn’t even make 40 percent,” Brown said, referring to his reelection’s vote margin.
Ronil who?
Rep. Hakeen Jeffries reiterates support for policies that killed Ronil Singh. democrats have made it abundantly clear that the welfare of illegal aliens is more important that the lives of Americans. The plan is for importing as many infected, illiterate and unskilled illegals as possible, make them legal through sweeping amnesty and grant them the right to vote- for democrats- in effect burying the rest of America.
Virtually no democrat has expressed any sympathy for the family of Ronil Singh, most likely because he was a legal immigrant.
Not one f**king democrat wonders how that animal Gustavo Perez Arriaga came to possess a gun. Not one f**king democrat has said a thing about how California is protecting gangs like the one Arriaga belonged to. Instead, Nancy Pelosi keeps blabbering on about “God’s children.”
House minority leader and fierce abortion rights proponent Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday that everyone has “a moral responsibility to ensure all children of God are treated with compassion and decency.”
You know- like this one.
What’s not clear is the point at which children become “children of God.” In the past she has called late term abortions- the termination of a viable child- “sacred ground.” Pelosi is the very definition of a convenience Catholic. an execrable “Catholic.”
And not one freaking tweet about Singh and his family. I am just about to the point that for every American who is murdered at the hands of an illegal, a democrat politician should be euthanized.
democrats have declared war on Catholics. Believers are “extreme”, you see.
And along that same line, Facebook banned Franklin Graham.
Along the collusion front Mueller is now collecting nude selfies and claiming they’re critical to his investigation.
In the “WTF does this have to do with Russia files” the FBI is now investigating Trump golf club’s employment documents in New Jersey because you know Trump does all the hiring personally for all his properties. What it does tell you is that the left is determined to remove Trump from office at any and all costs.
From the “What the hell makes you think you’re entitled to do this?” folder, watch this moron explode on a Trump supporter
Then there’s this looney tune. I would have made the same er, mistake.
Liberal ass tries to get radio talk show host fired because he dared disagree with her
Feminist Amy Siskind tried to get progressive radio show host David Pakman fired from his adjunct professorship at Boston College after he dared to disagree with her social justice politics on Twitter.
In a tweet last week, Siskind argued that she would not support any white male candidates in the Democratic primary. “I will not support white male candidates in the Dem primary. Unless you slept thru midterms, women were our most successful candidate,” Siskind wrote. “Biggest Dem vote getters in history: Obama ‘08, Hillary ‘16. White male is not where our party is at, and is our LEAST safe option in 2020.”
Pakman tweeted an er, diverse opinion and she went postal:
The day after, Pakman reported that Siskind had called Boston College, where Pakman has previously served as an adjunct faculty member, and asked that he be terminated. Pakman explained that he could not be terminated because adjunct faculty member as rehired every semester and he is not currently teaching.
However, it is not entirely clear why Siskind thought that her disagreement with Pakman justified her call to Boston College.
In a comment to The College Fix, Siskind asked Pakman to apologize for daring to disagree with her. “Mr. Pakman can publicly apologize and explain his misstatements. I understand he has been corrected,” she wrote. “People are watching how he conducts himself.”
It certainly is unclear why damned liberals think they’re entitled to do whatever they want and get whatever they want, although I have to say that watching the left eat itself is a small pleasure.
University of Missouri: tall men asking short women out for a date is sexual harassment
A former vice chancellor at the University of Missouri argued in a deposition that it can be sexual harassment if a tall man asks a short woman out on a date.
According to a report from the St. Louis ABC affiliate, a former vice chancellor at the University of Missouri argued during depositions for a campus sexual assault case that it could be considered sexual assault for a tall male student to ask a short female student out on a date.
Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Cathy Scroggs, who resigned from the university in 2017, argued that the alleged perpetrator had committed harassment simply as a result of his “power over” the female student. The power the alleged perpetrator had, according to Scroggs, came nothing more from his physical size.
Covering the really important stories
CNN runs a segment on how Trump's use of "witch hunt" offends witches pic.twitter.com/PSsk8ZOXkR
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) December 30, 2018
The Washington Posts’s constantly Trump bashing has finally gotten a rebuke from the Wall St. Journal.
The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page offered a feisty Boxing Day pieceon Wednesday lashing into the Washington Post over coverage of President Trump’s Christmastime visit to the troops.
The Journal focused on this piece by the Post’s Philip Rucker and Paul Sonne, citing the opening two paragraphs and accusing it of needlessly working in unrelated Trump scandals into a piece that did not call for it.
“Can anyone reading those opening two sentences wonder why millions of Americans believe Donald Trump when he tells them that he can’t get a fair shake from the press?” the Journal asked. “The point isn’t to feel sorry for Mr. Trump, whose rhetorical attacks on the press have often been contemptible. The point is that such gratuitously negative reporting undermines the credibility of the press without Mr. Trump having to say a word.”
If you follow WaPo and Politico on Twitter, you would see that it’s a non-stop Trump-bashing fest, with “Opinion” and “Analysis” far outnumbering true news stories. The line between news and opinion was blurred long ago.
In a garbage (read that Harvard) poll, it is claimed that 60% want Trump impeached
Nearly 60 percent of U.S. voters surveyed say President Trump should be either impeached and removed from office or formally censured, according to a new Harvard CAPS/Harris poll released exclusively to The Hill.
The poll shows that a majority of voters polled think some kind of action should be taken against Trump, though they are divided on how far lawmakers should go as Democrats prepare to take over the House majority.
Asked whether Trump should be impeached and removed from office for his actions, censured by Congress or whether Congress should take no action, 39 percent of respondents said Trump should be impeached and removed from office.
But they have not a damned idea why. Then again, democrat voters do not think.
Two years into Trump’s Presidency, it’s bone spurs time
A New York City podiatrist may be responsible for helping President Trump eschew military service during the Vietnam War.
The daughters of the now-deceased podiatrist, Dr. Larry Braunstein, told the New York Timesthat their father often recounted the story about how he had given Trump a diagnosis of bone spurs in the heels. The implication, they said, was that the diagnosis was provided as a favor to his father, Fred Trump, who owned the building where his practice was located.
Trump received the diagnosis in 1968, which disqualified him from serving in the military. Prior to that he had also received several educational deferments.
But…..
The daughters, Dr. Elysa Braunstein, 56, and Sharon Kessel, 53, confirmed the story, saying that in exchange Fred Trump would swiftly handle any issues in the building.
The daughters, both Democrats, said they are not fans of President Trump.
Ya think?
Things the democrat media ignored
Obama’s ambassador to Syria: Trump’s troop withdrawal decision is ‘essentially correct’
The former U.S. ambassador to Syria has said President Trump was “essentially correct” in removing troops from the country.
Robert Ford, a career diplomat and fluent Arabic speaker served as U.S. ambassador to Algeria under President George W. Bush after being a senior diplomat in Iraq. He was then appointed U.S. ambassador to Syria by President Barack Obama in 2010.
“The president should view the hullabaloo that erupted after he announced the Syrian pullout as an opportunity to take a number of steps to make the most of his essentially correct, but widely unpopular, move,” Ford wrote in an op-ed Thursday for the Washington Post.
Parents Of 8-Year-Old Migrant Who Died Brought Boy For Easier US Entry
The mother of an 8-year-old Guatemalan boy who died in U.S. custody has revealed her family’s reasons for bringing the boy on the dangerous trek to the U.S. border.
In an interview with Reuters, Catarina Alonzo said that her husband took her son with him to the border in the hopes that the child would afford them easier entry into the United States.
Bombshell: New Info Says Khashoggi Was A Foreign Influence Agent
Oops!
The Washington Post has caused itself a major scandal since it has come to light they and their martyred “reformer” Jamal Khashoggi were publishing anti-Saudi propaganda for Qatar. They tried to bury this in a pre-Christmas Saturday news dump, but that can’t stop the damage this will do to their reputation.
“Text messages between Khashoggi and an executive at Qatar Foundation International show that the executive, Maggie Mitchell Salem, at times shaped the columns he submitted to The Washington Post, proposing topics, drafting material and prodding him to take a harder line against the Saudi government,” the Post wrote December 21.
The Post says they were unaware of this, although Khashoggi’s Qatar connections were well known. They will have to answer for what is either incompetence in connecting these dots or simply not caring as Khashoggi’s attacks on President Trump and the Saudis fit right in with their narrative. The Qatar Foundation denies they were paying him to produce the anti-Saudi material.
Life is easy when you’re married to a billionaire
Rep. Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke (D-TX) believes the country must focus on the well-being of illegal immigrant migrant children “above any other concern.”
“We are very saddened to learn of the death of another child in U.S. custody,” he tweeted on Tuesday after a second migrant child died after crossing the border. “We must focus on the wellbeing of these children above any other concern.”
I keep hearing how American children go to bed hungry and this a-hole wants more. How much of his own money do would you bet he has spent on this concern?
Liberals (other than you, Greg and Rich) are immoral, amoral and insane.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
@Deplorable Me:
Your thesis, then, is that everyone who feels suicidal will automatically take it to the extreme that your cousin took it.
@kitt: This, too, is interesting. Apparently, one cannot have a firearm transferred into their name unless they can check a box “Male” or “Female”. This will prevent many mental defectives from attaining guns.
https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/atf-genderqueer-gun-purchasers/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=20180803_FridayDigest_185&utm_campaign=%2Fblog%2Fatf-genderqueer-gun-purchasers%2F&fbclid=IwAR2jcXHKLzMRQH32lD8C69sUGw-toV2kXM0airC0dNrRis1l64cpfbgUBrk
@Nan G: Actually, we’ve been talking about Europe because a) the languages we speak are widely spoken there, and b) it would give easy access to historical sites related to topics that interest me.
But I guess you can head-canon your own reasons if you’d like. It’s probably a moot point anyway.
@Michael: No, this merely disputes your assumption that without guns people would simply decide not to commit suicide. If they are so desperate and despondent, they will use any means. Perhaps making it quick and painless is compassionate.
Like crime, the best remedy is to treat the emotions instead of trying to defend the broadest zone.
I can’t wait until the socialist faction (OAC) of the democrat party gets complete control in their party,
That’ll be the death of the democrat party I knew growing up in the 40’s & 50’s!
@Deplorable Me:
There are people who contemplate suicide who are neither as desperate nor as despondent as your cousin was. They pause at the thought of a drawn-out, lingering death. The urge to suicide passes. They move on. Sometimes their lives improve, and sometimes they don’t.
@Michael: Ah. A psychoanalyst that can’t answer simple questions. It must be a lucrative practice.
@Michael: Do you have the ability to remember your own posts?
What common sense gun laws laws would you make?
857 million weapons in civilian hands at the end of 2017, if all gun owning citizens were a real problem you would know it, how many felons do you want, where will you put them?
@kitt:
Nowhere did I write the phrase “common sense gun laws,” (and, if I had, I would have punctuated it correctly). I wrote that there were things we could do. One thing I would do is to remove firearms as an object of worship in our society.
@Michael:
Let’s assume that was actually a condition; exactly how would you do that?
Oh, sorry… a question. Never mind.
You know, the liberal philosophy of supporting unrestricted illegal immigration, which invites in the worst and most vicious criminals into our country and the sanctuary city policies which protects the criminals and repeatedly re-releases them into the population, as well as lax treatment of violent criminals, combined with the desire to disarm law abiding citizens simply doesn’t make sense to many, many people.
@Deplorable Me:
Two things: first, you’re spouting off about how people think in re: suicide exactly as much as I am, so amateur psychoanalyst, heal thyself.
Second, I’ve actually known people who were deterred from committing suicide by the necessity of doing it in a drawn-out, painful fashion, and I’ve known a couple of people whose drive to kill themselves was so great that they’d do anything to get the job done, like your cousin.
I understand that there’s a spectrum of suicidal thoughts on which people can find themselves. Either you don’t understand that, or you’re pretending no to understand it in order to score imaginary argumentation points. I suspect that it’s the latter, but I don’t know for sure.
@Deplorable Me:
That’s a tough one that I’ve only begun to think about. One thing I’d do is to try to amend the Constitution and thus remove the “scripture” that supports the basis of gun enthusiasts’ worship–just change the wording to “can be infringed.” That would be a start.
@Michael: I’ve never heard of anyone committing suicide by slowly lowering a car on themselves. Nor have I heard of anyone contemplating suicide by holding their breath. Every means is quick and believed to be painless; less pain than they are currently enduring. A piece of broken glass can open a vein. Using suicide as an excuse to attack gun ownership is weak and idiotic.
Besides, as you have shown, you have little regard for human life when it conflicts with the liberal agenda.
There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment for “enthusiasts” or “worship”. It is for self defense. And you don’t need to change to “can be infringed”; this is already done.
@Deplorable Me:
Your ideas about what goes through the mind of a suicidal person are either laughably simplistic and one-dimensional, or you persist in typing childish absurdities simply because you have a little kid’s need to contradict everything I say.
@Deplorable Me:
Oh man that, is jumping straight to imbecile, just red zone on the moron meter. Making an attempt at constitutional rights not being granted by the government is way to far above this ones educational level or IQ.
@Michael: Certainly nothing so comprehensive as believing removing guns from the public would cure suicide.
@kitt: I’ve yet to see an altar made of or for guns. But, whatever makes those prejudiced misconceptions percolate, I guess.
@Redteam: @Deplorable Me:
Seriously? Your defense rests on the fact that those words don’t actually appear in the Constitution? You’re saying that it is impermissible to use any other words in discussing the Constitution than those which actually appear in it?
Why are you lying? You quoted that phrase to me above in this very thread, and, in addition, I’ve read the Constitution, so I know that the phrases appears there.
You yourself quoted that phrase in this thread as part of your indictment of the very idea of passing laws restricting gun ownership. You can’t use it as a piece of evidence in support of your ideas and then say that it–and/or the idea that it embodies–doesn’t exist. You have to choose one or the other.
@kitt:
This sentence doesn’t make any sense in the context of the discussion so far. Can you try putting the idea a different way?
@Deplorable Me:
I never said that it would. But of course you know that.
@Deplorable Me:
I’ve yet to see a group of people defend an idea as blindly as they do the idea of gun ownership except for ideas about religion. If it’s not actual religious fervor, it’s indistinguishable from religious fervor to the uninitiated. FYI.
@Michael: No I will not explain myself to an imbecile. I am sure the person I addressed understood the meaning of the sentence.
@kitt:
Well, I guess that’s easier than actually having to make sense, at any rate.
@Michael: At 14 do you think you should be trying to understand adult things? I do not think you are old enough to be married or unsupervised on the internet.
@kitt:
Ah, the ad hominem attacks! I knew that they couldn’t be far off!
@Michael: You havent presented an intelligent argument for gun control. Ohhh did we look that term up how 15 of you. I must have hit pretty close.
@kitt:
For what it’s worth, you haven’t produced an intelligent argument against gun control, so I guess we’re even.
@kitt:
To be clear, I’m not asking you to explain what you mean as some kind of argumentational ploy. I simply don’t understand what you mean in the first half of that sentence. “Making an attempt at constitutional rights not being granted by the government” just doesn’t make sense to me. I know all the words, but, in that order, I simply don’t get what you’re trying to say.
Plenty of people write the occasional sentence that doesn’t make sense to the person trying to read it. It’s not an attack. I was willing to directly address what you wrote; I just didn’t know what you meant. “Making an attempt at constitutional rights”? What are you trying to say here?
@Michael:
No. What I am saying is that the right to bear arms is there for a very specific and important reason. It isn’t there for a hobby. So, if you want to initiate a campaign to ban enthusiasm, go right ahead. It would only confirm what most of us suspect anyway.
Don’t accuse me of lying just because you are an idiot. Go back and READ, you dumbass. UNDERSTAND, stupid, or drop out of the conversation.
So, in relation to suicide, what WOULD a further restriction of gun ownership achieve? As shown above, your reactionary contrary position to anything not liberal is exposing a stupidity I think you would have wanted to remain concealed.
In addition to the joy and pleasure of hunting, self defense is a God-given right. Firearms are used as a means to self defense thousands of times a year. In areas where your brand of insanity have mandated strict gun control, violence explodes. So, it is merely a matter of common sense and self-preservation that people who actually care about their own safety will reject any assault on that right and distrust those who promise to keep us safe from harm in lieu of self defense that have created such happy hunting grounds for criminals. Again, if liberals insist on letting illegal immigrant criminals into the country and protect them from law enforcement, being self-armed is of an even more important concern.
Liberals only worry about who they can blame for a tragedy, not how to protect themselves from it.
@Michael: Its in this countries constitution that is the highest law in this Republic. If you want the reasons for it read the federalist papers, read history and find out what shortly happens when a government disarms its people. You are obviously to young to recognize historical patterns.
@kitt:
The U.K. restricts gun ownership. How are the historical patterns you’re referring to manifesting themselves there?
@Michael:
And their violent crime spikes.
@Michael: They are being arrested for so called hate speech on SM, A knife attack every 4 minutes; 130,000 per year. Grooming gangs 1000s of rapes. Almost all perps African Migrants that were given free rein. Thats what happens n an open borders world when the citizens are muted and disarmed.
Most migrants on the dole so the taxpayers have to support the criminals
@Deplorable Me:
Right. It says right in the amendment that its purpose is to facilitate a militia. It says nothing about hunting or self-defense from the brown people you see in the streets.
@Michael: You are a racist!
I dont care how much melonin a person has, I will shoot anyone that attacks me.
@kitt:
All kinds of stuff has been in the Constitution–or deliberately left out of it. The Constitution said that blacks counted as three-fifths of a person; the Constitution specifically allowed the slave trade; the studiously ignored the idea of the vote for women.
All of these things and more all had reasons, but the Constitution was nonetheless changed. The Constitution has been changed twenty-seven times, and the fact that the framers included multiple methods in it for amendment shows that they fully expected it to be changed from time to time.
@Deplorable Me:
Why are you feeding the troll, Michael? He (if he is a he) obviously is anti-firearm and that is the end of that.
Of course, like all liberals, he doesn’t want to own a firearm so consequently, he wants to restrict your right to own one. And like all liberals, logic is an impossible thought process.
Justice Scalia was right; Democrats want to control everyone’s life. Republicans don’t want them to.
BTW, check out the Coyote Special. Made just for Texans.
Happy New Year
@kitt:
So says the person who’s ranting about immigrant violence and the inherent danger posed by Africans? I was simply describing your mindset. I have no problem with Africans or other brown folks. How can you tell? I’m not ranting about how dangerous they are.
@Michael: The constitution never ever read that a black was any partial person that was a finding of the Supreme court 9 guys in black robes. Interpretation caused an unborn person not to have the right to live at all. Read the entire document the word “abortion” doesnt appear. Nor any fractional census count of any citizens. Activist Judges.
@kitt:
Article I, section 2, paragraph 3:
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”
Blacks did not count as full people when apportioning representatives; that’s who is being referred to by “three fifths of all other Persons.” Everybody else counted as full people: free whites, indentured whites, and natives–everybody except slaves, and the only slaves were black.
@Michael:
You really need a history book pal Early in America’s history, white Irish slaves outnumbered black slaves and endured worse treatment at the hands of their masters. So whites slaves were treated by the law equally to blacks.
other fun history.
The first Slave owner was Black.
In 1830 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves.
@kitt: Incorrect. The Irish were never slaves. The Irish served as the indentured servants previously mentioned.
@Michael: Fool! They were sold into slavery by the king, The first slaves imported into the American colonies were 100 White children. They arrived during Easter, 1619, children, what debts did they have to indenture themselves?
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, more than 300,000 white people were shipped to America as slaves. Some only some illiterate Irish peasants signed indenture papers not knowing what they were putting their mark on. Urchins were swept up from London’s streets to labor in the tobacco fields, where life expectancy was no more than two years. Brothels were raided to provide “breeders” for Virginia. Hopeful migrants were duped into signing as indentured servants, unaware they would become personal property who could be bought, sold, and even gambled away. Transported convicts were paraded for sale like livestock.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/07/the_forgotten_history_of_britains_white_slaves_in_america.html
@Michael:
Wow, you are catching on… a little. It merely says US citizens have the right to bear arms and it won’t be infringed. We have, however, agreed to SOME infringements because we are reasonable people. That tolerance has been strained because we don’t deal with reasonable people; we deal with controlling people.
MULTIPLE methods? Uh… no. There is ONE way to change the Constitution.
Really. Why would you describe HER mindset to ME? No, that is YOUR inner thought. You think describing illegal immigrants as dangerous is wrong when we are discussion on of many, many examples of illegal immigrants, aided and abetted by Democrats, killing innocent citizens?
Where did that mention “blacks” or even “Negros”? And, do you know WHY slaves were only counted as 3/5ths? I doubt you do or will admit it.
@kitt:
Anti-firearm, anti-public safety, anti-law enforcement, anti-integrity, anti-honesty, anti-American. In fact, the only thing that keeps him from scurrying off to some socialist paradise is the wait for someone else to pay for it. Is that typical or what?
@Deplorable Me:
Incorrect.
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution
@Michael: That’s how a change is PROPOSED. How is it CHANGED?
@kitt:
https://apnews.com/920e1c738df04555bccd56c09770b36d
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2018/0316/No-the-Irish-were-not-slaves-in-the-Americas
Even these guys:
https://www.foxnews.com/world/ap-fact-check-irish-slavery-a-st-patricks-day-myth
@Deplorable Me:
Dude. Just admit that you were incorrect. Or don’t admit it, and then move on. Just don’t double down.
@Deplorable Me: Happy new Year, this troll is a racist he actually thinks slavery has something to do with melanin. His education highly limited most likely a coastal public school.
@Michael: No, I don’t admit I am incorrect because I am not. Suggesting or proposing a change is not the same as CHANGING the Constitution, for which there is ONLY ONE METHOD. The “multiple” ways the Constitution can be changed you allude to are using the courts and revisionist judges to redefine the Constitution, and that is NOT an approved means. Only by amendment is the Constitution changed, not simply redefined when parts of it gets in the way of the liberal ideology. Admit YOU are wrong. Also admit you are satisfied to see American citizens die, be raped, robbed and terrorized so the liberal agenda can be promoted, because that is what you argue for.
@kitt: Notice he has no idea what the 3/5ths Amendment was actually for. Being a racist, he can’t admit that slavery was opposed from the very beginning and written into the Constitution. Happy New Year!!
@Michael: So a Person loaded on a boat against their will most times, shipped to America then worked to death in often less than 2 years is a freeman? Were the men shanghaied on the west coast and whipped if the wouldnt work on the ship also indentured?
What these people are doing is refusing to admit a very shameful but documented piece of history its what the liberals of today do, change the language to control the narrative.
Hey it wasnt the love boat they were crammed onto, then put to hard labor in a climate that killed them.
I guess the documentation of cargo, not paying passengers CARGO on the ships is bogus. https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ships+manifest+showing+irish+as+cargo&qpvt=ships+manifest+showing+irish+as+cargo&FORM=IGRE look at the one from 1860.
A cylinder wrapped by an incline plane is still a screw.
African slaves were very expensive during the late 1600s (50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more than 5 Sterling). If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African.
The reason the Irish were indentured servants and not called slaves was in the 1700s slavery was declared illegal in the UK by judge mansfield…go see the movie ‘Bell’…..So they got around by different means, calling them pows, convicts, rebels, and or indentured servants.