Colorado mom arrested in 'JihadJane' terror case

[Caliga]

The guy is cute. 

God DAMN those Russians! 

[Caliga]

Nothing wrong with "Mum"; it's your "Mom" that sounds weird...

We're in charge, so we get to decide how to pronounce shit.  Y'all had your time in the sun, but gave it away rather than do the right thing and give those Indians what for. 

[Agelastus]

We're in charge, so we get to decide how to pronounce shit.  Y'all had your time in the sun, but gave it away rather than do the right thing and give those Indians what for. 

10%, cheaper tea, and a little protection for the natives...what glorious things to revolt against... 

[Neil]

Nothing wrong with "Mum"; it's your "Mom" that sounds weird...

We're in charge, so we get to decide how to pronounce shit.  Y'all had your time in the sun, but gave it away rather than do the right thing and give those Indians what for. 

Britain couldn't have held the US anyways.  Too much of the US population was devoted to slavery.

[Caliga]

I meant 'Indian subcontinent' Indians.  I would never use the racidistic term 'Indian' to refer to my Native American brothers and sisters. 

[jimmy olsen]

Nothing wrong with "Mum"; it's your "Mom" that sounds weird...

We're in charge, so we get to decide how to pronounce shit.  Y'all had your time in the sun, but gave it away rather than do the right thing and give those Indians what for. 

Britain couldn't have held the US anyways.  Too much of the US population was devoted to slavery.

And why wouldn't the Free labor North have supported the Motherland in the inevitable Civil War?

[Neil]

And why wouldn't the Free labor North have supported the Motherland in the inevitable Civil War?

Because they didn't.  The North fought in the Rebellion to save slavery.

[jimmy olsen]

And why wouldn't the Free labor North have supported the Motherland in the inevitable Civil War?

Because they didn't.  The North fought in the Rebellion to save slavery.

Eh? What are you going on about? The Revolution had nothing to do with slavery.  We're talking about a hypothetical rebellion in British North America over slavery 60-90 years later, totally different circumstances.

[Razgovory]

Britain wouldn't have repudiated slavery if it was still practiced widely in their colonies.  So the point is moot.  They only banned it after it became economically irrelevant.   And even after that they still looked the other way when it happened.

[jimmy olsen]

Britain wouldn't have repudiated slavery if it was still practiced widely in their colonies.  So the point is moot.  They only banned it after it became economically irrelevant.   And even after that they still looked the other way when it happened.

Yeah, because that's exactly what happened in the United States.

If it was still profitable in the US, why would it have been unprofitable in the British W. Indies?

I seem to recall a rather extensive Royal Navy antislavery campaign.

[Neil]

And why wouldn't the Free labor North have supported the Motherland in the inevitable Civil War?

Because they didn't.  The North fought in the Rebellion to save slavery.

Eh? What are you going on about? The Revolution had nothing to do with slavery.  We're talking about a hypothetical rebellion in British North America over slavery 60-90 years later, totally different circumstances.

The Rebellion was all about slavery.  Britain was going abolitionist and starting to pass laws ending slavery and emancipating slaves.

[Razgovory]

Britain wouldn't have repudiated slavery if it was still practiced widely in their colonies.  So the point is moot.  They only banned it after it became economically irrelevant.   And even after that they still looked the other way when it happened.

Yeah, because that's exactly what happened in the United States.

If it was still profitable in the US, why would it have been unprofitable in the British W. Indies?

I seem to recall a rather extensive Royal Navy antislavery campaign.

Was slavery economically relevant in the US when it was abolished?  No, most slave holding areas were in open rebellion and thus not really contributing to the national economy.  I didn't say slavery was unprofitable I said it became irrelevant.  With the loss of most of the Americas slavery became more and more insignificant in the British economy.  The power of the Slave Lobby subsequently diminished.  It's a lot easier to ban something when it only effects you trivially.

[Razgovory]

And why wouldn't the Free labor North have supported the Motherland in the inevitable Civil War?

Because they didn't.  The North fought in the Rebellion to save slavery.

Eh? What are you going on about? The Revolution had nothing to do with slavery.  We're talking about a hypothetical rebellion in British North America over slavery 60-90 years later, totally different circumstances.

The Rebellion was all about slavery.  Britain was going abolitionist and starting to pass laws ending slavery and emancipating slaves.

And it only took them 60 years after the Revolution to do so!  I could see how this was an emergency and require swift action!

[Neil]

And why wouldn't the Free labor North have supported the Motherland in the inevitable Civil War?

Because they didn't.  The North fought in the Rebellion to save slavery.

Eh? What are you going on about? The Revolution had nothing to do with slavery.  We're talking about a hypothetical rebellion in British North America over slavery 60-90 years later, totally different circumstances.

The Rebellion was all about slavery.  Britain was going abolitionist and starting to pass laws ending slavery and emancipating slaves.

And it only took them 60 years after the Revolution to do so!  I could see how this was an emergency and require swift action!

They were passing emancipatory laws in the 1770s, like the Colliers and Salters Act.  The Americans saw it as the thin edge of the wedge.

[Razgovory]

I doubt many Americans even knew about it.  Nor was it likely on the minds of those in Boston where the Revolution started where there were few slaves and slavery was abolished shortly after the war.