Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed Latest to Ban Travel to North Carolina

Newsweek ^ | April 5, 2016 | Lucy Westcott

[SoFloFreeper]

This is the same bigoted mayor who forced the Fire Chief out for being a Bible believing Christian.

Truth.

[cyclotic]

I’m taking a group of 20 boys from our trail life USA troop to summer camp in North Carolina n July.

It’s essential travel.

[RushIsMyTeddyBear]

Kasim can Kissis my Kissass.

[Moonman62]

It seems to me that NC is getting the best of it.

[BwanaNdege]

On our next trip on I-95 we will be sure to drive straight through Georgia. Non-stop.

Don't condemn the entire state for the actions of one person elected mayor of a town of 456,002 people.

[Carry me back]

Wow, Atlanta. NC is doomed. Lol

[liberalism is suicide]

It makes North Carolina a safer place for decent people.

[DiogenesLamp]

Diogenes advocates spreading false rumors as a political strategy.

You liked it when Abraham Lincoln did it.

Any examples of false things he's posted down through the years?

Certainly, his advocacy of deliberate falsehood calls his credibility into question.

Looking at the list of people you pinged, it becomes immediately apparent that you are attempting to denounce the points I have made about the Civil War by calling them "Lies."

No, they are not lies. They are more accurate, and make more sense than that fantasy which you very desperately want to believe.

The Civil War was fought over money. The money that New England would lose to Free and Independent ports in the Southern States.

With Tariff's in the North of 43%, and Tariff's in the South of 13%, the vast bulk of European shipping would have made a beeline for Charleston and Savanna, and thereby severely wrecked the massive financial infrastructure of Abraham Lincoln's most significant supporters; The Robber Barons of the New England area.

It was this massive threat to their shipping and port interests that caused the Power Brokers of New England to push Lincoln into War.

That Blockade he threw up around the South, was more to stop Europeans from profiting, than it was to prevent the South from getting any necessary war material.

Stop talking to me about pushing lies when you are supporting one of the biggest lies ever perpetrated.

[Starboard]

We already have the states going up against the government on healthcare and immigration issues and now states are turning against each other. Nobody is taking a leadership role and promoting national unity. Makes you wonder where this is all heading?

[x]

The Civil War was fought over money. The money that New England would lose to Free and Independent ports in the Southern States.

Like I said: lies. And pretty tired and desperate ones.

With Tariff's in the North of 43%, and Tariff's in the South of 13%, the vast bulk of European shipping would have made a beeline for Charleston and Savanna, and thereby severely wrecked the massive financial infrastructure of Abraham Lincoln's most significant supporters; The Robber Barons of the New England area.

So many mistakes in that one sentence. Leaving spelling and punctuation aside, tariffs only went up over 40% because of the war. They only went up as far as they did before that because Southern slave states had already left Congress.

Goods go to where there are customers to buy them or means of efficient transportation to get them to the customers. Given the smaller free population and less developed transport network, it's not likely that foreign goods would flood into Charleston or Savannah. If they did they'd pile up on the docks unsold, or the importers would have to sell them for so little that they'd go out of business themselves.

How sure are you, really, that Americans, north or south, had some unappeasable hunger and thirst for foreign goods? Weren't we doing fine without them? The idea of gutting US industry by undercutting tariffs to encourage a flood of cheap foreign imports is pretty far-fetched, but if there were any truth in it, it wouldn't be as benign a policy as you imply, especially when combined with rebel grabs at US goods and territory.

But about your stupid suggestion.

If some terrorist actually took you up on it, you'd have blood on your hands.

But of course, foreign terrorists aren't up on the little nuances of US politics. Tell them that the mayor of Atlanta, Georgia insulted the founder of their religion, and if you get any response at all from them, it would likely be an attack on the city or the state, rather than on an individual. So, more blood on your hands.

And while these scenarios may be far-fetched, the really stupid thing about your idea is that anybody can do it, so you'd have propagandists on the other side spreading similar lies about Cruz or Trump, and those lies might be more likely to stick than yours.

Not to mention that if you get a name for spreading lies whatever credibility you may still have is lost. Even if -- as is clear from a lot of what you post -- truth means nothing to you, there are plenty of practical reasons why people shouldn't spread lies.

[rockrr]

DegenerateLamp drank his own kool-aid and believes his own crap. He is beyond redemption. “One cannot reason a person out of a conclusion he didn’t reason himself into”.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Another proud Black man down with the struggle for being on the down-low--you know, since being Black and being homosexual or "transgender" is the same thing. [/sarcasm]

I'm waiting for American Black leadership to officially excommunicate Africans from the Brotherhood for being such "uncle toms."

[Zionist Conspirator]

Where are the African American pastors in Atlanta???? Why are they silent??

They're silent because they have one enemy and one enemy alone (whitey). They have refused for sixty years to take part in the moral debates that have been going on this country; why in the world would they do so now?

Also, the enemy of their enemy is their friend; you know, since whitey oppresses both of them.

[DiogenesLamp]

Leaving spelling and punctuation aside,

You may want to peruse this thread.

:)

Goods go to where there are customers to buy them or means of efficient transportation to get them to the customers.

If the customer has money or something to trade. If the customer does not have money or something to trade, goods go to where they do.

And what was the bulk of the outgoing Trade?

Given the smaller free population and less developed transport network, it's not likely that foreign goods would flood into Charleston or Savannah.

With all profits being equal. But tip the profit balance towards Charleston by 30%, and suddenly it becomes a much more attractive port.

How sure are you, really, that Americans, north or south, had some unappeasable hunger and thirst for foreign goods? Weren't we doing fine without them? The idea of gutting US industry by undercutting tariffs to encourage a flood of cheap foreign imports is pretty far-fetched, but if there were any truth in it, it wouldn't be as benign a policy as you imply, especially when combined with rebel grabs at US goods and territory.

You are misstating the whole situation. Europe WANTED Cotton and Tobacco. In exchange came European products and European money. The vast bulk of it went through New York because it was simply easier to get there and New York had great port facilities. The laws of the time (and still today) prohibited foreign ships from carrying cargo between US Ports, so European trade could only trade with one port anyway. All else being equal, New York was the best port.

Cut Tariff's in the South by 30%, and much of that trade represented by that pile of coins, moves to Charleston South Carolina. It represents Billions of dollars in losses for New England.

.

.

If some terrorist actually took you up on it, you'd have blood on your hands.

If nothing is done, I will have my own and my families blood on my hands. We are not going to be tolerated. They will come for us eventually if we refuse to submit to their social changes.

The possibility that I might induce Muslims to murder Liberals does not bother me greatly, so long as I receive no personal blowback from it.

Looking at the problem with clinical detachment, Western civilization needs to be awoken to the danger that Islamic demographic gains represent. I see no "happy" way out of this situation. Every plausible scenario comes down to more bloodshed, either ours or theirs.

Europe desperately needs more, and more violent Islamic attacks. Europe needs to keep getting hit until they wake up to the fact that they are committing suicide by tolerating Muslims, and they are also committing suicide by tolerating Liberal ideas.

Muslims are going to kill people. Might as well try to steer them towards people where their violence will do the most good. If we keep trying to fight this social/demographic war with the Marquess of Queensberry rules, we are going to lose it, and the blood of our own families will be upon our heads.

I am more of the Andrew Jackson / Curtis LeMay school of fighting. Even Sherman said "If Hood goes North, hell, I'll give him rations. "

When your enemy is making a mistake, help him make it.

[x]

His latest: “Europe desperately needs more, and more violent Islamic attacks.”

[rockrr]

Well he always was pretty much a jerk ;'}