Science > Abortion > More Proof Christian "Johnny" Lied About South Being More Productive
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Yang, AthD h.c, Kicking AWOLs Cocaine Snorting Ass" |
| Date: |
12 Jul 2006 12:15:25 AM |
| Object: |
More Proof Christian "Johnny" Lied About South Being More Productive |
Read them and weep, *****.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
The more industrialized economy of the North aided in the production
of arms, munitions and supplies, as well as finances, and
transportation. The graph shows the relative advantage of the USA over
the CSA at the start of the war. The advantages widened rapidly during
the war, as the Northern economy grew, and Confederate territory
shrank and its economy weakened.
The Union GNP was THREE TIMES the CSA, even though the union had LESS
THAN three times the CSA population!
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -2543 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
-----
Contact duke's priest and ask
him why duke is such a racist:
http://www.stpatrickbr.org/
-----
newsgroups Yang promises not to revenge post
in response to Sound-of-Trumpet's *****:
rec.art.scifi.written
sci.archaeology
soc.history.what-if
.
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: More Proof Yang tries to hide the truth! |
12 Jul 2006 08:53:12 PM |
|
|
Where are the COTTON numbers, idiot?
That graph had NOTHING in it that included cotton.
The real facts are that the South was exporting more, and by a very large
margin, than the North was exporting and with fewer persons, many, many
fewer persons.
The GDP contribution of the South was more than 25 percent greater than what
the North was producing.
It isn't as easy to find the truth from that era because so many
unproductive types in the USA don't want people to know what really was the
case. so they routinely omit the data that shows the South was far more
productive.
"Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting *****"
<eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in message
news:r019b25lpsqlq840uetj412qja6bjk6391@4ax.com...
Read them and weep, *****.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
The more industrialized economy of the North aided in the production
of arms, munitions and supplies, as well as finances, and
transportation. The graph shows the relative advantage of the USA over
the CSA at the start of the war. The advantages widened rapidly during
the war, as the Northern economy grew, and Confederate territory
shrank and its economy weakened.
The Union GNP was THREE TIMES the CSA, even though the union had LESS
THAN three times the CSA population!
You are relying on data that ignores cotton, you idiot.
You scumbag liars and deceivers think you can sell a lie to the people, and
it will cause you harm, because it harms others.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: More Proof Yang tries to hide the truth! |
12 Jul 2006 10:32:17 PM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
Where are the COTTON numbers, idiot?
That graph had NOTHING in it that included cotton.
The real facts are that the South was exporting more, and by a very large
margin, than the North was exporting and with fewer persons, many, many
fewer persons.
The GDP contribution of the South was more than 25 percent greater than what
the North was producing.
It isn't as easy to find the truth from that era because so many
unproductive types in the USA don't want people to know what really was the
case. so they routinely omit the data that shows the South was far more
productive.
A couple interesting bits about cotton...
The North's blockade of southern ports closed down the
export of cotton to a trickle, and the import of industrial
goods to a trickle as well.
Most of the South's wealth was based on agricultural
exports. Without the ability to export that wealth,
it didn't matter what the South's productivity was.
With the blockade cutting off the South's ability to
export cotton, the South expected worldwide demand
for the product to force European leaders to intervene
on their behalf. Problem was, the South had
over-exported so much cotton during the decade
before the war that England and others had enough
extra cotton stock on hand to weather the shortfall.
Cotton is nice. When it comes to war, huge population,
better infrastructure and the lion's share of heavy
industry is lots better.
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: More Proof Yang tries to hide the truth! |
13 Jul 2006 09:40:12 AM |
|
|
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152761537.525991.214610@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
Where are the COTTON numbers, idiot?
That graph had NOTHING in it that included cotton.
The real facts are that the South was exporting more, and by a very large
margin, than the North was exporting and with fewer persons, many, many
fewer persons.
The GDP contribution of the South was more than 25 percent greater than
what
the North was producing.
It isn't as easy to find the truth from that era because so many
unproductive types in the USA don't want people to know what really was
the
case. so they routinely omit the data that shows the South was far more
productive.
A couple interesting bits about cotton...
The North's blockade of southern ports closed down the
export of cotton to a trickle, and the import of industrial
goods to a trickle as well.
Most of the South's wealth was based on agricultural
exports. Without the ability to export that wealth,
it didn't matter what the South's productivity was.
With the blockade cutting off the South's ability to
export cotton, the South expected worldwide demand
for the product to force European leaders to intervene
on their behalf. Problem was, the South had
over-exported so much cotton during the decade
before the war that England and others had enough
extra cotton stock on hand to weather the shortfall.
Cotton is nice. When it comes to war, huge population,
better infrastructure and the lion's share of heavy
industry is lots better.
The entire thing centers around why war though?
The Southerners did not want a war.
The North was hellbent on destroying wealth in the USA.
See the results yet?
How many died?
The Civil War possibly was the worst thing that happened to the USA.
When will the USA learn that heavy handed, militaristic politics is what
pisses people off at them?
Look at North Korea now and Venezuela, etc.
When will the US learn that bully tactics suck many times?
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: More Proof Yang tries to hide the truth! |
13 Jul 2006 11:58:01 AM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152761537.525991.214610@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
Where are the COTTON numbers, idiot?
That graph had NOTHING in it that included cotton.
The real facts are that the South was exporting more, and by a very large
margin, than the North was exporting and with fewer persons, many, many
fewer persons.
The GDP contribution of the South was more than 25 percent greater than
what
the North was producing.
It isn't as easy to find the truth from that era because so many
unproductive types in the USA don't want people to know what really was
the
case. so they routinely omit the data that shows the South was far more
productive.
A couple interesting bits about cotton...
The North's blockade of southern ports closed down the
export of cotton to a trickle, and the import of industrial
goods to a trickle as well.
Most of the South's wealth was based on agricultural
exports. Without the ability to export that wealth,
it didn't matter what the South's productivity was.
With the blockade cutting off the South's ability to
export cotton, the South expected worldwide demand
for the product to force European leaders to intervene
on their behalf. Problem was, the South had
over-exported so much cotton during the decade
before the war that England and others had enough
extra cotton stock on hand to weather the shortfall.
Cotton is nice. When it comes to war, huge population,
better infrastructure and the lion's share of heavy
industry is lots better.
The entire thing centers around why war though?
The Southerners did not want a war.
Could have fooled the Fort Sumter garrison.
The North was hellbent on destroying wealth in the USA.
See the results yet?
How many died?
The Civil War possibly was the worst thing that happened to the USA.
When will the USA learn that heavy handed, militaristic politics is what
pisses people off at them?
Look at North Korea now and Venezuela, etc.
When will the US learn that bully tactics suck many times?
It takes two sides to make a fight. It's very hard to support
the South ideologically against the North, and it's inescapable
that the South bears all responsibility for escalating an economic
and political matter to one of armed conflict.
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: More Proof Yang tries to hide the truth! |
13 Jul 2006 12:57:25 PM |
|
|
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152809881.564176.305810@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152761537.525991.214610@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
Where are the COTTON numbers, idiot?
That graph had NOTHING in it that included cotton.
The real facts are that the South was exporting more, and by a very
large
margin, than the North was exporting and with fewer persons, many,
many
fewer persons.
The GDP contribution of the South was more than 25 percent greater
than
what
the North was producing.
It isn't as easy to find the truth from that era because so many
unproductive types in the USA don't want people to know what really
was
the
case. so they routinely omit the data that shows the South was far
more
productive.
A couple interesting bits about cotton...
The North's blockade of southern ports closed down the
export of cotton to a trickle, and the import of industrial
goods to a trickle as well.
Most of the South's wealth was based on agricultural
exports. Without the ability to export that wealth,
it didn't matter what the South's productivity was.
With the blockade cutting off the South's ability to
export cotton, the South expected worldwide demand
for the product to force European leaders to intervene
on their behalf. Problem was, the South had
over-exported so much cotton during the decade
before the war that England and others had enough
extra cotton stock on hand to weather the shortfall.
Cotton is nice. When it comes to war, huge population,
better infrastructure and the lion's share of heavy
industry is lots better.
The entire thing centers around why war though?
The Southerners did not want a war.
Could have fooled the Fort Sumter garrison.
I am sure it coulda fooled them. Unjust idiots following the orders of
criminals intent on stealing other persons' wealth normally get their butts
kicked eventually.
The South wasn't wanting a war though. imo.
They were trying to get rid of the Union that failed to represent them.
And, how do you know the Union forces that were at Ft. Sumter weren't going
around stealing slaves from Farmers in the South? If the USA woulda paid the
Slaveowners for the slaves the South woulda been more conducive to
emancipation. When did Lincoln or any other abolitionsit put any of their
own money into the very thing they were intent on destroying?
The fourth Amendment itself forbids unreasonable search and seizure of the
peoples' property and effects.
The North was hellbent on destroying wealth in the USA.
See the results yet?
How many died?
The Civil War possibly was the worst thing that happened to the USA.
When will the USA learn that heavy handed, militaristic politics is what
pisses people off at them?
Look at North Korea now and Venezuela, etc.
When will the US learn that bully tactics suck many times?
It takes two sides to make a fight.
And, the US, by Lincoln, made the first move.
It's very hard to support the South ideologically against the North,
Legally, it is easy to support the South.
There was no amendment ratified to free the slaves.
The emancipation proclamation violated the Fourth Amendment.
and it's inescapable that the South bears all responsibility for
escalating an economic
and political matter to one of armed conflict.
*****.
All you criminal yankee types never read the law or practice it when you are
getting your lazy asses kicked around by Southerners who know what work is.
You stupid, idiotic, ungolden, criminal thieves wil never win with persons
who know the law and respect it and their fellow man.
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: More Proof Yang tries to hide the truth! |
13 Jul 2006 03:49:39 PM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152809881.564176.305810@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152761537.525991.214610@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
Where are the COTTON numbers, idiot?
That graph had NOTHING in it that included cotton.
The real facts are that the South was exporting more, and by a very
large
margin, than the North was exporting and with fewer persons, many,
many
fewer persons.
The GDP contribution of the South was more than 25 percent greater
than
what
the North was producing.
It isn't as easy to find the truth from that era because so many
unproductive types in the USA don't want people to know what really
was
the
case. so they routinely omit the data that shows the South was far
more
productive.
A couple interesting bits about cotton...
The North's blockade of southern ports closed down the
export of cotton to a trickle, and the import of industrial
goods to a trickle as well.
Most of the South's wealth was based on agricultural
exports. Without the ability to export that wealth,
it didn't matter what the South's productivity was.
With the blockade cutting off the South's ability to
export cotton, the South expected worldwide demand
for the product to force European leaders to intervene
on their behalf. Problem was, the South had
over-exported so much cotton during the decade
before the war that England and others had enough
extra cotton stock on hand to weather the shortfall.
Cotton is nice. When it comes to war, huge population,
better infrastructure and the lion's share of heavy
industry is lots better.
The entire thing centers around why war though?
The Southerners did not want a war.
Could have fooled the Fort Sumter garrison.
I am sure it coulda fooled them. Unjust idiots following the orders of
criminals intent on stealing other persons' wealth normally get their butts
kicked eventually.
The South wasn't wanting a war though. imo.
Strangely enough, they're the ones who started the shooting.
Odd behaviour for people who weren't wanting a war.
They were trying to get rid of the Union that failed to represent them.
And, how do you know the Union forces that were at Ft. Sumter weren't going
around stealing slaves from Farmers in the South?
It's hard to disprove a negative. How about some evidence
that they were?
If the USA woulda paid the
Slaveowners for the slaves the South woulda been more conducive to
emancipation. When did Lincoln or any other abolitionsit put any of their
own money into the very thing they were intent on destroying?
The fourth Amendment itself forbids unreasonable search and seizure of the
peoples' property and effects.
So you're OK with the idea that people are property?
*****
criminal yankee types
lazy asses
stupid
idiotic, ungolden, criminal thieves
That's a nice rant you've put together there. You've got
a lot of negative emotional investment in a cause that
died almost a century and a half ago. Are you still
hoping that the South will rise again?
wil never win with persons
who know the law and respect it and their fellow man.
Yep, them southerners were all about respect for their
fellow man...as long as that fellow man had the right
kind of skin. Is that the glory you want to return to?
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: More Proof Yang tries to hide the truth! |
13 Jul 2006 07:48:52 PM |
|
|
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152823779.327780.189090@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152809881.564176.305810@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152761537.525991.214610@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
Where are the COTTON numbers, idiot?
That graph had NOTHING in it that included cotton.
The real facts are that the South was exporting more, and by a very
large
margin, than the North was exporting and with fewer persons, many,
many
fewer persons.
The GDP contribution of the South was more than 25 percent greater
than
what
the North was producing.
It isn't as easy to find the truth from that era because so many
unproductive types in the USA don't want people to know what really
was
the
case. so they routinely omit the data that shows the South was far
more
productive.
A couple interesting bits about cotton...
The North's blockade of southern ports closed down the
export of cotton to a trickle, and the import of industrial
goods to a trickle as well.
Most of the South's wealth was based on agricultural
exports. Without the ability to export that wealth,
it didn't matter what the South's productivity was.
With the blockade cutting off the South's ability to
export cotton, the South expected worldwide demand
for the product to force European leaders to intervene
on their behalf. Problem was, the South had
over-exported so much cotton during the decade
before the war that England and others had enough
extra cotton stock on hand to weather the shortfall.
Cotton is nice. When it comes to war, huge population,
better infrastructure and the lion's share of heavy
industry is lots better.
The entire thing centers around why war though?
The Southerners did not want a war.
Could have fooled the Fort Sumter garrison.
I am sure it coulda fooled them. Unjust idiots following the orders of
criminals intent on stealing other persons' wealth normally get their
butts
kicked eventually.
The South wasn't wanting a war though. imo.
Strangely enough, they're the ones who started the shooting.
With good reason. The US had an Unrepresentative Military "Dictator's" fort
there, idiot.
Odd behaviour for people who weren't wanting a war.
What is odd is that the Union did not respect the Southern people's desires.
They were trying to get rid of the Union that failed to represent them.
And, how do you know the Union forces that were at Ft. Sumter weren't
going
around stealing slaves from Farmers in the South?
It's hard to disprove a negative.
Sometimes, yes. It can be done in some cases.
How about some evidence
that they were?
I did not even consider that the Union coulda been involved in such
unconstitutional acts until after seeing something that sought to place all
the blame upon the South. The Southern States would not have seceeded had
the emancipation proclamation not been made.
If the USA woulda paid the
Slaveowners for the slaves the South woulda been more conducive to
emancipation. When did Lincoln or any other abolitionsit put any of their
own money into the very thing they were intent on destroying?
The fourth Amendment itself forbids unreasonable search and seizure of
the
peoples' property and effects.
So you're OK with the idea that people are property?
In the case of children, that is very easy to see.
The main point I am making there is that the Northern element that was
condeming slavery had no vested interest in it.
They were spouting their opinions where they had nothing invested.
Sad it took a war to end the debate, I know.
There was leading up to the war than the Emancipation proclamation.
*****
criminal yankee types
lazy asses
stupid
idiotic, ungolden, criminal thieves
That's a nice rant you've put together there.
I guess. See how you feel if someone with guns in your neck of the woods
says, "Your business is illegal now."
I read where slave property was like $2 billion in 1860.
The North did nothing to compensate the South for their property.
Of course a war will erupt when you try to steal so much money from so many
people.
The Constitution forbade the Emancipation Proclamation without fair and just
compensation to the slave owners.
Where was the payment?
You've got a lot of negative emotional investment in a cause that
died almost a century and a half ago.
*****. I owned no slaves. My Great Grandfather came here after the Civil
War ended.
Read the 4th Amendment.
Are you still
hoping that the South will rise again?
Has the USA compensated the South for their slave property yet?
wil never win with persons
who know the law and respect it and their fellow man.
Yep, them southerners were all about respect for their
fellow man...as long as that fellow man had the right
kind of skin.
You are speaking from ignorance.
Go read the law that was in effect at the time instead of pulling wild
accusations outa nowhere.
Is that the glory you want to return to?
Why do you care what the situation is?
How about becoming familiar with the law as it is written and then comment
about what the real issues were in this war rather than making it into some
race biased crapshoot.
Only the ignorant make such comments.
The South had a vested interest in their 'slaves'.
The North had nothing invested, and the South was exporting much more than
the North.
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: More Proof Yang tries to hide the truth! |
14 Jul 2006 08:28:52 AM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
I did not even consider that the Union coulda been involved in such
unconstitutional acts until after seeing something that sought to place all
the blame upon the South. The Southern States would not have seceeded had
the emancipation proclamation not been made.
The Emancipation Proclamation was signed by Abraham Lincoln
on January 1st, 1863.
The secession of the Confederate States happened between
December of 1860 and November of 1861, one to two years
earlier.
You are greatly misinformed about American history. Your
opinions are based on your misinformation.
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: More Proof Yang tries to hide the truth! |
12 Jul 2006 10:19:08 PM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
Where are the COTTON numbers, idiot?
That graph had NOTHING in it that included cotton.
The real facts are that the South was exporting more, and by a very large
margin, than the North was exporting and with fewer persons, many, many
fewer persons.
The GDP contribution of the South was more than 25 percent greater than what
the North was producing.
It isn't as easy to find the truth from that era because so many
unproductive types in the USA don't want people to know what really was the
case. so they routinely omit the data that shows the South was far more
productive.
You still haven't established a correlation between productivity and
being a traitor...
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: More Proof Yang tries to hide the truth! |
13 Jul 2006 09:37:19 AM |
|
|
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152760748.306745.265730@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
Where are the COTTON numbers, idiot?
That graph had NOTHING in it that included cotton.
The real facts are that the South was exporting more, and by a very large
margin, than the North was exporting and with fewer persons, many, many
fewer persons.
The GDP contribution of the South was more than 25 percent greater than
what
the North was producing.
It isn't as easy to find the truth from that era because so many
unproductive types in the USA don't want people to know what really was
the
case. so they routinely omit the data that shows the South was far more
productive.
You still haven't established a correlation between productivity and
being a traitor...
One reason is because the more productive people weren't being traitors.
Research the thing.
The Emancipation Proclamation was NOT a representative act.
The Southern States were being taxed without representation at that point,
which is the very thing that caused the American Revolution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: More Proof Yang tries to hide the truth! |
13 Jul 2006 07:53:27 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152760748.306745.265730@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
Where are the COTTON numbers, idiot?
That graph had NOTHING in it that included cotton.
The real facts are that the South was exporting more, and by a very large
margin, than the North was exporting and with fewer persons, many, many
fewer persons.
The GDP contribution of the South was more than 25 percent greater than
what
the North was producing.
It isn't as easy to find the truth from that era because so many
unproductive types in the USA don't want people to know what really was
the
case. so they routinely omit the data that shows the South was far more
productive.
You still haven't established a correlation between productivity and
being a traitor...
One reason is because the more productive people weren't being traitors.
Research the thing.
That's something you'd rather not do.
The Emancipation Proclamation was NOT a representative act.
The Southern States were being taxed without representation at that point,
which is the very thing that caused the American Revolution.
Funny how the House and Senate had representatives from every one of those
states that seceded, isn't it?
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 7 vs. TBA, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: More Proof Yang tries to hide the truth! |
13 Jul 2006 11:39:23 PM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkr70puhvc.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152760748.306745.265730@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
Where are the COTTON numbers, idiot?
That graph had NOTHING in it that included cotton.
The real facts are that the South was exporting more, and by a very
large
margin, than the North was exporting and with fewer persons, many, many
fewer persons.
The GDP contribution of the South was more than 25 percent greater than
what
the North was producing.
It isn't as easy to find the truth from that era because so many
unproductive types in the USA don't want people to know what really was
the
case. so they routinely omit the data that shows the South was far more
productive.
You still haven't established a correlation between productivity and
being a traitor...
One reason is because the more productive people weren't being traitors.
Research the thing.
That's something you'd rather not do.
The Emancipation Proclamation was NOT a representative act.
The Southern States were being taxed without representation at that point,
which is the very thing that caused the American Revolution.
Funny how the House and Senate had representatives from every one of those
states that seceded, isn't it?
Oops. Correction, kinda tired tonight.
The Constitution had to be amended, (or is it emended?), which requires
ratification to outlaw slavery;......
I am going to look into the thing some more.
I thought I had posted a direct quote a good while back to you from my
American Heritage 'New' History of the Civil War that had the numbers 56
percent to 44 percent as far as the GDP of the South and North were
concerned, respectively.
Went to look for that data and saw only the 57 percent contribution of the
South to exports from the USA.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 7 vs. TBA, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: More Proof Yang tries to hide the truth! |
13 Jul 2006 11:53:55 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkr70puhvc.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152760748.306745.265730@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
Where are the COTTON numbers, idiot? That graph had NOTHING in it that
included cotton. The real facts are that the South was exporting more,
and by a very large margin, than the North was exporting and with fewer
persons, many, many fewer persons. The GDP contribution of the South
was more than 25 percent greater than what the North was producing. It
isn't as easy to find the truth from that era because so many
unproductive types in the USA don't want people to know what really was
the case. so they routinely omit the data that shows the South was far
more productive.
You still haven't established a correlation between productivity and
being a traitor...
One reason is because the more productive people weren't being traitors.
Research the thing.
That's something you'd rather not do.
The Emancipation Proclamation was NOT a representative act.
The Southern States were being taxed without representation at that point,
which is the very thing that caused the American Revolution.
Funny how the House and Senate had representatives from every one of those
states that seceded, isn't it?
Oops. Correction, kinda tired tonight.
That dog won't hunt.
The Constitution had to be amended, (or is it emended?), which requires
ratification to outlaw slavery;......
I am going to look into the thing some more.
I thought I had posted a direct quote a good while back to you from my
American Heritage 'New' History of the Civil War that had the numbers 56
percent to 44 percent as far as the GDP of the South and North were
concerned, respectively.
Went to look for that data and saw only the 57 percent contribution of the
South to exports from the USA.
It's already been posted - Amendment XIII went to the states January 21, 1865,
and was ratified by Georgia (the 27th state) that same year on December 6th.
That's the basic fact.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 7 vs. TBA, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: More Proof Yang tries to hide the truth! |
14 Jul 2006 07:58:30 AM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szk8xmwss64.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkr70puhvc.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152760748.306745.265730@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
Where are the COTTON numbers, idiot? That graph had NOTHING in it
that
included cotton. The real facts are that the South was exporting
more,
and by a very large margin, than the North was exporting and with
fewer
persons, many, many fewer persons. The GDP contribution of the South
was more than 25 percent greater than what the North was producing.
It
isn't as easy to find the truth from that era because so many
unproductive types in the USA don't want people to know what really
was
the case. so they routinely omit the data that shows the South was
far
more productive.
You still haven't established a correlation between productivity and
being a traitor...
One reason is because the more productive people weren't being traitors.
Research the thing.
That's something you'd rather not do.
The Emancipation Proclamation was NOT a representative act.
The Southern States were being taxed without representation at that
point,
which is the very thing that caused the American Revolution.
Funny how the House and Senate had representatives from every one of
those
states that seceded, isn't it?
Oops. Correction, kinda tired tonight.
That dog won't hunt.
The Constitution had to be amended, (or is it emended?), which requires
ratification to outlaw slavery;......
I am going to look into the thing some more.
I thought I had posted a direct quote a good while back to you from my
American Heritage 'New' History of the Civil War that had the numbers 56
percent to 44 percent as far as the GDP of the South and North were
concerned, respectively.
Went to look for that data and saw only the 57 percent contribution of the
South to exports from the USA.
It's already been posted - Amendment XIII went to the states January 21,
1865,
and was ratified by Georgia (the 27th state) that same year on December
6th.
That's the basic fact.
Look, condescending idiot:
The WAR STARTED a long time before that AMENDMENT went to the states.
Now, put the peices together better and stop acting like the SOUTH is a
bastion of ractis loons, because the reality is the USA is a thieveing piece
of dogshit for berains assholes who commit crimes against the people of the
USA and foreigners.
Read the data, *****.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 7 vs. TBA, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: More Proof Yang tries to hide the truth! |
14 Jul 2006 10:32:40 AM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szk8xmwss64.fsf@fnord.io.com...
[...]
It's already been posted - Amendment XIII went to the states January 21,
1865, and was ratified by Georgia (the 27th state) that same year on
December 6th. That's the basic fact.
Look, condescending idiot:
The WAR STARTED a long time before that AMENDMENT went to the states.
Four years, which may not be that long a time.
Now, put the peices together better and stop acting like the SOUTH is a
bastion of ractis loons, because the reality is the USA is a thieveing piece
of dogshit for berains assholes who commit crimes against the people of the
USA and foreigners.
Maybe you should lay off the LSD, Wentzky. Your forefathers tried to preserve
slavery, and some of them got their heads handed to them for it, and that was
140 years ago. Get over it, already.
Read the data, *****.
Go back to the Home, little loon.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 7 vs. TBA, 7:35
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: More Proof Yang tries to hide the truth! |
13 Jul 2006 11:14:27 PM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkr70puhvc.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152760748.306745.265730@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
Where are the COTTON numbers, idiot?
That graph had NOTHING in it that included cotton.
The real facts are that the South was exporting more, and by a very
large
margin, than the North was exporting and with fewer persons, many, many
fewer persons.
The GDP contribution of the South was more than 25 percent greater than
what
the North was producing.
It isn't as easy to find the truth from that era because so many
unproductive types in the USA don't want people to know what really was
the
case. so they routinely omit the data that shows the South was far more
productive.
You still haven't established a correlation between productivity and
being a traitor...
One reason is because the more productive people weren't being traitors.
Research the thing.
That's something you'd rather not do.
The Emancipation Proclamation was NOT a representative act.
The Southern States were being taxed without representation at that point,
which is the very thing that caused the American Revolution.
Funny how the House and Senate had representatives from every one of those
states that seceded, isn't it?
Well, fill me in if you know something I don't about this.
I thought the EP was executive order without the legislature voting on it.
The Constitution had to be ratified to outlaw slavery; and, there was no
chance that 75 percent of the States at that point woulda passed it, imo.
So, tell me, if you can, what part of the EP was in line with the law of the
USA at the time.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 7 vs. TBA, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: More Proof Yang tries to hide the truth! |
13 Jul 2006 11:44:01 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkr70puhvc.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152760748.306745.265730@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
Where are the COTTON numbers, idiot?
That graph had NOTHING in it that included cotton.
The real facts are that the South was exporting more, and by a very
large
margin, than the North was exporting and with fewer persons, many, many
fewer persons.
The GDP contribution of the South was more than 25 percent greater than
what
the North was producing.
It isn't as easy to find the truth from that era because so many
unproductive types in the USA don't want people to know what really was
the
case. so they routinely omit the data that shows the South was far more
productive.
You still haven't established a correlation between productivity and
being a traitor...
One reason is because the more productive people weren't being traitors.
Research the thing.
That's something you'd rather not do.
The Emancipation Proclamation was NOT a representative act.
The Southern States were being taxed without representation at that point,
which is the very thing that caused the American Revolution.
Funny how the House and Senate had representatives from every one of those
states that seceded, isn't it?
Well, fill me in if you know something I don't about this.
I thought the EP was executive order without the legislature voting on it.
Idiot. Amendment XIII nuked slavery.
The Constitution had to be ratified to outlaw slavery; and, there was no
chance that 75 percent of the States at that point woulda passed it, imo.
So, tell me, if you can, what part of the EP was in line with the law of the
USA at the time.
You're a drooling idiot, Wentzky: Amendment XIII was sent to the states at
the end of January 1865, and the 27th state to ratify it (since there were 36
states at the time) was Georgia, on December 6th of the same year. Put the
crack pipe down, for once in your life.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 7 vs. TBA, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: More Proof Yang tries to hide the truth! |
14 Jul 2006 07:50:19 AM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkd5c8ssmm.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkr70puhvc.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152760748.306745.265730@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
Where are the COTTON numbers, idiot?
That graph had NOTHING in it that included cotton.
The real facts are that the South was exporting more, and by a very
large
margin, than the North was exporting and with fewer persons, many,
many
fewer persons.
The GDP contribution of the South was more than 25 percent greater
than
what
the North was producing.
It isn't as easy to find the truth from that era because so many
unproductive types in the USA don't want people to know what really
was
the
case. so they routinely omit the data that shows the South was far
more
productive.
You still haven't established a correlation between productivity and
being a traitor...
One reason is because the more productive people weren't being traitors.
Research the thing.
That's something you'd rather not do.
The Emancipation Proclamation was NOT a representative act.
The Southern States were being taxed without representation at that
point,
which is the very thing that caused the American Revolution.
Funny how the House and Senate had representatives from every one of
those
states that seceded, isn't it?
Well, fill me in if you know something I don't about this.
I thought the EP was executive order without the legislature voting on it.
Idiot. Amendment XIII nuked slavery.
Amendments have to be ratified by seventy five percent of the States,
'idiot'.
Remember that part?
The Constitution had to be ratified to outlaw slavery; and, there was no
chance that 75 percent of the States at that point woulda passed it, imo.
So, tell me, if you can, what part of the EP was in line with the law of
the
USA at the time.
You're a drooling idiot, Wentzky: Amendment XIII was sent to the states
at
the end of January 1865, and the 27th state to ratify it (since there were
36
states at the time) was Georgia, on December 6th of the same year. Put
the
crack pipe down, for once in your life.
The Amendment was ratified after a war had started that cost the lives of
more of the men here than in all the other wars we were in, combined, it
says.
The Amendment came after the war had been fought a very long time, not
before.
Follow the timeline.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 7 vs. TBA, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: More Proof Yang tries to hide the truth! |
14 Jul 2006 10:25:21 AM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkd5c8ssmm.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkr70puhvc.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152760748.306745.265730@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
Where are the COTTON numbers, idiot?
That graph had NOTHING in it that included cotton.
The real facts are that the South was exporting more, and by a very
large margin, than the North was exporting and with fewer persons,
many, many fewer persons. The GDP contribution of the South was more
than 25 percent greater than what the North was producing. It isn't
as easy to find the truth from that era because so many unproductive
types in the USA don't want people to know what really was the
case. so they routinely omit the data that shows the South was far
more productive.
You still haven't established a correlation between productivity and
being a traitor...
One reason is because the more productive people weren't being traitors.
Research the thing.
That's something you'd rather not do.
The Emancipation Proclamation was NOT a representative act. The Southern
States were being taxed without representation at that point, which is
the very thing that caused the American Revolution.
Funny how the House and Senate had representatives from every one of
those states that seceded, isn't it?
Well, fill me in if you know something I don't about this.
I thought the EP was executive order without the legislature voting on it.
Idiot. Amendment XIII nuked slavery.
Amendments have to be ratified by seventy five percent of the States,
'idiot'. Remember that part?
You obviously didn't, since I explained that just afterward. At least you
faithfully reposted it this time.
The Constitution had to be ratified to outlaw slavery; and, there was no
chance that 75 percent of the States at that point woulda passed it, imo.
So, tell me, if you can, what part of the EP was in line with the law of
the USA at the time.
You're a drooling idiot, Wentzky: Amendment XIII was sent to the states at
the end of January 1865, and the 27th state to ratify it (since there were
36 states at the time) was Georgia, on December 6th of the same year. Put
the crack pipe down, for once in your life.
The Amendment was ratified after a war had started that cost the lives of
more of the men here than in all the other wars we were in, combined, it
says. The Amendment came after the war had been fought a very long time, not
before. Follow the timeline.
You're still an insane idiot, Wentzky. I pointed out the facts, and you're
trying to take the conversation somewhere else. Is that one of your standards
for supposedly being "Christian"?
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 7 vs. TBA, 7:35
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Miriam Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: More Proof Yang tries to hide the truth! |
14 Jul 2006 12:21:33 AM |
|
|
The Chief Instigator wrote:
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkr70puhvc.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152760748.306745.265730@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
Where are the COTTON numbers, idiot?
That graph had NOTHING in it that included cotton.
The real facts are that the South was exporting more, and by a very
large
margin, than the North was exporting and with fewer persons, many, many
fewer persons.
The GDP contribution of the South was more than 25 percent greater than
what
the North was producing.
It isn't as easy to find the truth from that era because so many
unproductive types in the USA don't want people to know what really was
the
case. so they routinely omit the data that shows the South was far more
productive.
You still haven't established a correlation between productivity and
being a traitor...
One reason is because the more productive people weren't being traitors.
Research the thing.
That's something you'd rather not do.
The Emancipation Proclamation was NOT a representative act.
The Southern States were being taxed without representation at that point,
which is the very thing that caused the American Revolution.
Funny how the House and Senate had representatives from every one of those
states that seceded, isn't it?
Well, fill me in if you know something I don't about this.
I thought the EP was executive order without the legislature voting on it.
Idiot. Amendment XIII nuked slavery.
Dollars to doughnuts that moron also doesn't know that Lincoln freed not
one slave. The Emancipation Proclamation only "freed" the slaves of
"those states now in rebellion". No Northern slaves (if there were any
still left) were freed, no slaves in Maryland were freed. At that point
in time, in the same way that the US claims the 4th of July as America's
"birthday", Lincoln had no jurisdiction over the CSA, it was for 4 brief
years a sovereign government and thus not bound by laws of other
countries. Which of course is why both houses of Congress had to pass
and then ratify an amendment to the Constitution.
--
L'Chaim
Miriam
In the beginning
the Word already was.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: More Proof Yang tries to hide the truth! |
13 Jul 2006 02:09:55 PM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152760748.306745.265730@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
Where are the COTTON numbers, idiot?
That graph had NOTHING in it that included cotton.
The real facts are that the South was exporting more, and by a very large
margin, than the North was exporting and with fewer persons, many, many
fewer persons.
The GDP contribution of the South was more than 25 percent greater than
what
the North was producing.
It isn't as easy to find the truth from that era because so many
unproductive types in the USA don't want people to know what really was
the
case. so they routinely omit the data that shows the South was far more
productive.
You still haven't established a correlation between productivity and
being a traitor...
One reason is because the more productive people weren't being traitors.
Research the thing.
Ahh, so you still don't have anything to show the correlation. Nice
try.
The Emancipation Proclamation was NOT a representative act.
The Southern States were being taxed without representation at that point,
which is the very thing that caused the American Revolution.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD h.c, Kicking AWOLs Cocaine Snorting Ass" |
|
| Title: Oops, Christians Revisionist "Johnny" Continue to Lie About the Sout |
12 Jul 2006 11:33:37 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 21:53:12 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
Where are the COTTON numbers, idiot?
It's called GROSS National Product. Guess whether or not cotton was in
there, you fucking moron.
That graph had NOTHING in it that included cotton.
The Graph had GROSS National Product.
Why are you so dishonest?
The real facts are that the South was exporting more, and by a very large
margin, than the North was exporting and with fewer persons, many, many
fewer persons.
So what? Productitivy is not measured by how much you export, it's
measured by how much you produce.
Why are you so dishonest?
The GDP contribution of the South was more than 25 percent greater than what
the North was producing.
So? It's still less then it's share of teh total population.
It isn't as easy to find the truth from that era because so many
unproductive types in the USA don't want people to know what really was the
case. so they routinely omit the data that shows the South was far more
productive.
Oh I get it, you're theory is proved by the lack of the evidence
supporting such.
Again, why are you so dishonest?
"Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting *****"
<eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in message
news:r019b25lpsqlq840uetj412qja6bjk6391@4ax.com...
Read them and weep, *****.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
The more industrialized economy of the North aided in the production
of arms, munitions and supplies, as well as finances, and
transportation. The graph shows the relative advantage of the USA over
the CSA at the start of the war. The advantages widened rapidly during
the war, as the Northern economy grew, and Confederate territory
shrank and its economy weakened.
The Union GNP was THREE TIMES the CSA, even though the union had LESS
THAN three times the CSA population!
You are relying on data that ignores cotton, you idiot.
And your proof of that? Oops, you're just making ***** up. GNP MEANS
GNP, you fucking liar.
You scumbag liars and deceivers think you can sell a lie to the people, and
it will cause you harm, because it harms others.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -2544 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
-----
Contact duke's priest and ask
him why duke is such a racist:
http://www.stpatrickbr.org/
-----
newsgroups Yang promises not to revenge post
in response to Sound-of-Trumpet's *****:
rec.art.scifi.written
sci.archaeology
soc.history.what-if
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: More Proof Christian "Johnny" Lied About South Being More Productive |
12 Jul 2006 01:04:16 PM |
|
|
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting ***** wrote:
Read them and weep, *****.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
The more industrialized economy of the North aided in the production
of arms, munitions and supplies, as well as finances, and
transportation. The graph shows the relative advantage of the USA over
the CSA at the start of the war. The advantages widened rapidly during
the war, as the Northern economy grew, and Confederate territory
shrank and its economy weakened.
The Union GNP was THREE TIMES the CSA, even though the union had LESS
THAN three times the CSA population!
You really shouldn't confuse Johnny with facts and data that way. His
closed little mind can't take it. Stand by for a meltdown...
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
