Oh crap!!! Here we go again!!

[RickN]

It keeps getting g repeated how it was the goobermint that forced the banks to make bad loans.
It was a Clinton reelection ploy that allowed low income, bad risk applicants to "qualify". Much to the delight of the banks, the loans were guaranteed. Realtors made major sales. Builders were building as fast as the could and employing masses (yes, many illegals).
With home prices soaring so did the tax bases.

Sounds like a win, win, win
Well, unless it crashes and you are a taxpayer left holding the worthless note.
But we get Hitlery in '16 and it will be all better again.

If the banks did not issue enough high risk loans to unqualified applicants they faced fines among other things. Not to mention groups like ACORN protesting outside bankers houses, holding sit-ins in bank lobbies, etc.

 

[RickN]

Oh I have researched it, that's why I laugh so hard at it.

You find this funny???

“During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, [Oliver] Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.”

 

[LightningCrash]

You find this funny???

You should double the numbers, it would make it twice as good. Or triple!
Or copy paste some more stuff from stormfront.

 

[WTJ]

You should double the numbers, it would make it twice as good. Or triple!
Or copy paste some more stuff from stormfront.

Sturmtief!

Bahahahahahahahahhahaha!

 

[RickN]

You should double the numbers, it would make it twice as good. Or triple!
Or copy paste some more stuff from stormfront.

That is not from stormfront, as far as I know that bunch of racist a$$holes are not smart enough to research anything. They have preconceived notions based on their hatred of others. Some here have preconceived notions based on what they have been taught.

Blacks were not the only slaves in the Americas and whites not the only slave owners. Yes some people including some Irish sold themselves into indentured servitude to earn passage here, others were forced into it because of debts. Still others because they were Catholic, Irish, whatever the English wanted less of in their country. Street children were rounded up in the large cities and sold to land owners in the Americans. These people were bought and sold, their children were born into it and many times sold to other owners. They called it indentured servitude to start with even when the people were blacks from Africa. That gradually changed with more and more laws taking effect until at the end we had the slaves everyone is familiar with. They even used black troops to put down uprisings by "indentured servitude" people.

The whole thing is rather interesting in a twisted sort of way once you dig past the political and PC bs. None of it was right and it would be great to think the problem has been erased but it is still going on even in this country.

This is from the DailyKos piece.

The first recorded sale of Irish slaves was to a settlement in the Amazon in 1612, seven years before the first African slaves arrived in Jamestown.

The Proclamation of 1625 by James II made it official policy that all Irish political prisoners be transported to the West Indies and sold to English planters. Soon Irish slaves were the majority of slaves in the English colonies.

In 1629 a large group of Irish men and women were sent to Guiana, and by 1632, Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat in the West Indies. By 1637 a census showed that 69% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves, which records show was a cause of concern to the English planters. But there were not enough political prisoners to supply the demand, so every petty infraction carried a sentence of transporting, and slaver gangs combed the country sides to kidnap enough people to fill out their quotas.

The slavers were so full of zest that they sometimes grabbed non-Irishmen. On March 25, 1659, a petition was received in London claiming that 72 Englishmen were wrongly sold as slaves in Barbados, along with 200 Frenchmen and 7-8,000 Scots.

 

[LightningCrash]

There was always a large distinction from Indentured servants and Slaves. Indentured servants had a place in the legal system. Unlike slaves they had trials and due process and a right to complain to the authorities. You couldn't get away with working them to death without paying some consequences, while you could do that with slaves.

The number one, most important difference is that the Irish were always indentured for a set period of time: they did not lose their freedom for life, and their children were not consigned to slavery for life. Another key difference is that they retained their status as legal persons and citizens. The justification for their being made to work, after all, was a contract which put them under indenture. The whole system of indenture, in other words, was predicated on the assumption that these were free individuals and citizens, who could never be someone else's property. Finally, European servants also retained many of the most important legal rights of other citizens - they could appeal to the authorities if they were mistreated, and there were legal/cultural limits on just how poorly they could be treated. That's what Eltis was referring to when he talked about "Christian usage"
Africans brought to the Caribbean and American colonies, in contrast, had no contract: they were there for life, and their children would be there for life too. Africans were not recognized as legal persons; they were chattel, property. By the eighteenth century, it was expressly written into law in many American slave states that slave's owners could beat, rape, or even murder them and they had no legal recourse. This was never the case for Irish servants.

 

[RickN]

There was always a large distinction from Indentured servants and Slaves. Indentured servants had a place in the legal system. Unlike slaves they had trials and due process and a right to complain to the authorities. You couldn't get away with working them to death without paying some consequences, while you could do that with slaves.

The number one, most important difference is that the Irish were always indentured for a set period of time: they did not lose their freedom for life, and their children were not consigned to slavery for life. Another key difference is that they retained their status as legal persons and citizens. The justification for their being made to work, after all, was a contract which put them under indenture. The whole system of indenture, in other words, was predicated on the assumption that these were free individuals and citizens, who could never be someone else's property. Finally, European servants also retained many of the most important legal rights of other citizens - they could appeal to the authorities if they were mistreated, and there were legal/cultural limits on just how poorly they could be treated. That's what Eltis was referring to when he talked about "Christian usage"
Africans brought to the Caribbean and American colonies, in contrast, had no contract: they were there for life, and their children would be there for life too. Africans were not recognized as legal persons; they were chattel, property. By the eighteenth century, it was expressly written into law in many American slave states that slave's owners could beat, rape, or even murder them and they had no legal recourse. This was never the case for Irish servants.

I suggest you read some of the links I posted, legal recourse and all was not always the case and at times you could not tell the difference between the two. Both Indentured servants and slaves were considered property and children born to both faced the same fate as their parents. Both could work for their freedom but towards the end it was almost impossible for slaves to gain freedom.

 

[LightningCrash]

I suggest you read some of the links I posted, legal recourse and all was not always the case and at times you could not tell the difference between the two. Both Indentured servants and slaves were considered property and children born to both faced the same fate as their parents. Both could work for their freedom but towards the end it was almost impossible for slaves to gain freedom.

I suggest you research the topic more. The first indentured servants in America came over within a decade of Jamestown and there was already legal protection for them (as they were citizens), and it wasn't slavery. Slavery in America was realized with laws passed in Massachusetts in 1641 and Virginia - 1661 . Prior to that time, Africans brought to America were indentured servants. Slavery in America was very different from Indentured Servitude.

For some reason in 2006 or so this push for "Irish slavery" really ramped up, and I spent some good money chasing this down. It seems to have started with a misappropriation of "slavery" in a book in 2001 and ended up in a self referential circlejerk of books released in 2004-2005, which were gobbled up by Irish nationalists, Stormfront-types, and some just plain ignorant folks.

The idea has been put down so many times, it's comical. Again, why I laugh at it.

 

[CHenry]

Start a new thread. This one is about banks and loans.

 

[TedKennedy]

Start a new thread. This one is about banks and loans.

Fisting, bestiality, totalitarianism. So there.