Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

heck, I'd sit down for a meal with all y'all

I've bought Wingnut and the Vine Street Bomber a few beverages in the past and would do it again.
They're both much more left leaning than I.
Vine Street Bomber is even a retired school teacher

On that note, things don't look great for me for Nashville this fall. Lots of travel this year and I'm not sure it'll make sense. 

I remember 2015 because we were on the Mississippi River Bridge when we got a call that my 50 YO BIL died from surgical malpractice. 

We didn't even know he was having surgery. It was routine, outpatient.

Definitely outpatient, but now how he planned it.

He did an Ironman about a month before.

Wow, you guys are literalists, aren't ya?

Let's see, these 400 guys on a ship all have guns and they're docking at a port with just say 400 people ashore, with the 20 guys with guns herding the 380 that are chained up.

You're right.  Technically both sides had guns.  You got me there. 

FFS, people.  I'm done.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Passage

According to wiki, slave trade ships typically had about 30 crew. What are they going to do, leave 10 to protect the boat (their livelihood) and send the other 20 to just start raiding the African coast and rounding up hundreds of slaves themselves? No matter how many guns they have, that's not going to be a thing. Maybe at the nation-state level they could invade Africa and start capturing slaves, but the actual traders didn't have the manpower or firepower to do anything like that. They HAD to rely on the native Africans to supply the product. 

(Again none of this is excusing any of it, nor is it "blaming" Africans for slavery--just pointing out that there were multiple parties involved. And also highlighting, per YOUR question, the fact that Africans sold other Africans into slavery because they weren't "brethren"--they had no allegiance or commonality of purpose to those they captured.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Passage

According to wiki, slave trade ships typically had about 30 crew. What are they going to do, leave 10 to protect the boat (their livelihood) and send the other 20 to just start raiding the African coast and rounding up hundreds of slaves themselves? No matter how many guns they have, that's not going to be a thing. Maybe at the nation-state level they could invade Africa and start capturing slaves, but the actual traders didn't have the manpower or firepower to do anything like that. They HAD to rely on the native Africans to supply the product.

(Again none of this is excusing any of it, nor is it "blaming" Africans for slavery--just pointing out that there were multiple parties involved. And also highlighting, per YOUR question, the fact that Africans sold other Africans into slavery because they weren't "brethren"--they had no allegiance or commonality of purpose to those they captured.)

Indeed, in some cases they were mortal enemies and were happy to rid the land of those that would otherwise hunt and kill their own. Not sure why OAM is attempting to rewrite some well-established and understood history, here.

Getting rid of gerrymandering is the quickest way to end all the horseshit partisanship we witness in DC every day but even that very doable step is a step too far to any number of entrenched interests on both sides.

I don't think it's really doable, or even clearly definable.  You have to rely on some court to define it and some commission to lay out the districts in the first place, at best.

And it would have zero impact on the Senate or Presidency.

I once saw someone claim Trump only won because of gerrymandering in 2016.

Getting rid of gerrymandering is the quickest way to end all the horseshit partisanship we witness in DC every day but even that very doable step is a step too far to any number of entrenched interests on both sides.

I mean, I’m not totally sure how one would do that. Other than some kind of random generator. Any map in theory advantages someone, unless you make it more general, which turns power over to parties, which people somewhat often don’t like (but not always, I suppose).