Potential Mayweather-McGregor numbers.

[JD]

Correct. Plus your hundred back.

[KingEugene]

(07-17-2017 08:28 PM)Warlord Wrote:  Depends on how you want to define majority. Total numbers rarely tell the whole story. Per capita is a better indicator of behavior when it comes to numbers.

For instance, 2/3 of Americans live in the middle to upper class, while 1/3 are in the lower class (with very, very few actually living in poverty as most think of the word, and fewer still who are homeless.)

In China, 2/3 of the population live in the lower class, while 1/3 are in the middle class or above. In total numbers China has more people living in the middle class than the U.S., but that's not an accurate or fair comparison considering the population sizes.

Yes, more whites owned slaves than blacks. But of the total free white population, only 1.4% owned slaves at the height of slavery. Nearly 30% of free blacks owned slaves during that same time period. I think that is a pretty remarkable figure, especially when you have the entirety of the Left, from the Americas to Asia to Europe, demanding that white America alone should bear the guilt of slavery, when each and every one of them contributed more to that sin than did America.

Those percentages are deceiving. One can compare 1.4% to 30% to show how it "wasn't that bad" but not mention 1.4% of 10 million people compared to 30% of maybe a million.

---

(07-19-2017 12:26 AM)JD Wrote:  Correct. Plus your hundred back.

Where do yall bet at? Sports Book? Thinking about betting on this one.

[boxingcritic]

Fucking awesome
Sneaking backstage at the McGregor vs Mayweather Press conference in London
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PL1BC1s8CQ

[BGv4.0]

Gumble on Real Sports ripped this fight a new asshole at the tail end of the show last night.

[Snoop]

(07-17-2017 06:30 PM)Warlord Wrote:  U.S. census records. The census records are extremely reliable, because Slave owners had to count their slaves annually for the census bureau, and for good reason. Because population sized determined how many seats a state had in the United States House of Representatives, slave owners had every incentive to list their slave numbers.

Additionally, the higher the number of slaves, the higher the population, thereby giving slave states more votes in the electoral college. For any of you who don't know what the electoral college is, look it up, and you'll understand why slave owners kept extensive records of the number of slaves in their household.

And then look up the Three-Fifths compromise, which the North pushed for to limit the power of the Southern states as a direct counter to what I just mentioned.

Do you have a link showing these exact stats?

Also, the percentages are misleading since there were and still are a much larger population of whites in this country. The percentages might be higher, but in terms of sheer numbers, I highly doubt blacks owned more slaves than whites as what you might be trying to suggest.

Quote:Johnson didn't come to the States as a slave. He came as an indentured servant (which generally lasted for a period of 7 years.) Before Johnson's case there were no slaves in the way we think of slavery today. There were only indentured servants. When Johnson's servant tried to leave, Johnson took him to court and won, which resulted in the first American to be actually be declared a slave. This is what opened the door to full-blown slavery, instead of indentured servitude, which had been the rule before.

Mmmm...this fact is debatable because there were no real set rules surrounding slavery and many terms resembling slavery took place but were never recorded. Furthermore, it seems as if John Punch was the first African slave condemned to a lifetime of servitude to Hugh Gwyn, 14 years before Anthony Johnson won his case.

Quote:It is relevant because the question was asked early on whether or not blacks owned slaves, whether or not blacks owned white slaves, whether or not black Americans owned slaves, whether or not black Americans owned black slaves, and whether or not black Americans owned white slaves. The answer is yes to all.

Him owning white slaves was relevant. Him being the first legal slave owner was not so much. It's an interesting fact, but him being the first legal slaveowner should not be confused with the notion that blacks were originally brought into this country to serve white landowners. I also don't believe that slaveowners before Johnson were treating their slaves justly then suddenly switched to being brutal slave owners because there was a court decision as you might be trying to imply.

Quote:It was by no means an anomaly. Free blacks owning whites was so common in Virginia, for example, that the state finally had to pass a law against it in 1670.

Again, references?

Quote:Of course it is. The right makes no distinctions at all among people. We think all laws should apply to all people equally, regardless of race, religion, or gender. It is the Left that insists on this. Let me give you an example.

Under Ronald Reagan, African-American unemployment fell from 19.5 percent in 1983 to 11.4 percent in 1989. Black-owned businesses saw income rise from $12.4 billion in 1982 to $18.1 billion in 1987 — an annual average growth rate of 7.9 percent. The black middle class expanded by one-third during the Reagan years, from 3.6 million to 4.8 million.

Blacks saw their incomes rise by 7.9% a year! When we see that growth rate coming out of China economists rightly label it as an unbelievably astounding economic miracle. But Leftists constantly howl about what an evil, racist president Reagan was.

When you ask them for an example, they inevitable point out the "war on drugs." They claim it is and was a racist policy that targeted and continues to target blacks.

Of course, this is a perfect example of the bigotry of the left. The only way the war on drugs could unfairly target blacks is if you assume that blacks are inherently more likely to commit crimes and use illegal drugs than other races.

And this is the same of all the Left's policies. Leftists lower academic standards for blacks, and create programs that allow blacks to enter top tier colleges with test scores that would disqualify whites immediately. This kind of policy only makes sense if you inherently believe blacks are stupider and less capable than whites are of working hard and making good grades.

I could go on, and will do if asked, but I think these examples should suffice.

---

Each one of these is a can of worms and I kind of don't want to open any of them because I feel that we've detracted from the thread enough already. Point taken though.

Quote:I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Blacks owned white slaves, and owned black slaves at a much higher percentage than whites did. Government, media, and academia has been on the side of black America since the civil rights movement.

We are now at a point in American history where it is acceptable for blacks or any other non-white race to be openly racist towards whites with impunity. The days of blacks being victims has long been over, and it is high time everyone realize it.

Again, percentages vs. sheer numbers. 5% of 100 is equal to 50% of 10.

I'll agree that nowadays the media narrative surrounding racial equality (or any sort of equality) is getting out of hand and people are just tired of fucking hearing it. I also don't believe in making people feel guilty for being born a certain way. I do think, however, that things like slavery and Jim Crows laws have repercussions on the present. I'll give one example:

Generally speaking, a person growing up in a household where their parents have a college education has a better chance of going to college from the sheer fact that said parent has experience in knowing how to get in, and in all likelihood has a better financial status to afford the tuition. So if certain populations are outright BANNED from higher education or from an education in general, their children will not the same access to the same resources as their counterparts whose parents did. Granted, there are plenty of great stories of people overcoming those kind of obstacles, but is that a fair society if everyone doesn't have to go through them?

Quote:Yep. The movie wasn't very good, but history channel also did a special on the Gangs of New York which was excellent.

Really? What didn't you like about the movie? I thought it was pretty good.

Quote:Never saw it, couldn't say.

The movie is about the 54th Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry, an all-black regime led by white officers who had to fight for their right to die for their country. Blacks were not exempt from the draft because they were viewed as more valuable than the Irish; they were exempt because they were not considered citizens of America. You're making the assumption that their exemption signifies a higher value in the US, but if that were true, that would make them more valued than rich whites since they too were drafted, but could buy their way out of the draft. And that's certainly not true by any means.

Quote:I've never actually met anyone who denied slavery or the evils of slavery, and I know no one in the media has. The Left isn't interested in the truth, and they aren't combating racism. They are pushing a narrative for their own selfish ends.

I over-spoke in saying there are those who deny slavery. I think everyone pretty much acknowledges it happened. But there are those who think it had little affect on the present day which I don't agree with.

Quote:Unfortunately educating oneself is the only option, as sadly we can no longer depend on the education system to do it. We don't even have an education system. We have an indoctrination system.

Indoctrination system is a good way of describing it; we probably have different views on the type of indoctrination that's happening, but I can see where you're coming from.

[the ollie reed fan club]

I'd be VERY interested to see Warlord's response, maybe over in the politics thread as there is a lot to discuss here.

BTW I saw on a Jordan Peterson lecture I was watching yesterday, and he is generally very very well researched, where he said that if Black America was an economy on its own it would be the 18th wealthiest economy in the world. Surprising.

[Snoop]

(07-19-2017 05:50 PM)the ollie reed fan club Wrote:  I'd be VERY interested to see Warlord's response, maybe over in the politics thread as there is a lot to discuss here.

BTW I saw on a Jordan Peterson lecture I was watching yesterday, and he is generally very very well researched, where he said that if Black America was an economy on its own it would be the 18th wealthiest economy in the world. Surprising.

Yeah maybe we should move this over? I feel like we're losing sight of the fight and focusing on just a small thing that happened that we all seem to agree was overblown by the media.

Interested to hear more about that study Ollie. Just computing that sort of conclusion is fascinating to me.

[the ollie reed fan club]

(07-19-2017 05:55 PM)Snoop Wrote:  Yeah maybe we should move this over? I feel like we're losing sight of the fight and focusing on just a small thing that happened that we all seem to agree was overblown by the media.

Interested to hear more about that study Ollie. Just computing that sort of conclusion is fascinating to me.

I've put the link over on the Politics thread.

[Imperius3]

Tyson Fury says McGregor will win by KO in the first 35 seconds.

The Gypsy King hath speaketh.

[ViperSniper]

Is it me or does Paulie look marked up? Do people still think it will be a slap in the face to boxing if Conor can land on Mayweather? If anything it could also be looked at as a slap in the face to MMA if Conor couldn't land a punch here