BootmanLA

Dude - do you even think about what you post? Do you not realize that's what the right wing has been doing for far, far longer than the Democrats have - in fact, since the 1960's, when the Democrats coalesced into the party of liberals while conservative Democrats began fleeing from their party to the welcoming arms of the GOP. The Republican party has been portraying Democrats as the ruination of America because of feminism, abortion, civil rights, gay rights, and more for my entire life, and CERTAINLY for yours. How did you reach whatever age you are and think this is strictly a Democratic phenomenon? See, there's that "belief" thing again, which is nice and all, but it's not "factual". Here's the facts: Acts of Congress have to pass both chambers there, and to pass the Senate it requires 60 votes (even for the most innocuous bills) because if any member objects, they have to take what's called a cloture vote - to limit filibustering and bring bills to a vote. It takes 60 votes to invoke cloture. So unless your party has 60 senators, or you can get the balance needed to defect from the other side, you can't advance most legislation. From 1969, the point at which the Democrats became the "liberal" party (as their conservative members began switching parties), the Democrats have had a 60-vote margin in the Senate from 1975 to 1979 (at which time abortion rights, civil rights, and voting rights were considered "solid" and gay rights were scarcely imagined), and then again for roughly two months of actual Senate meeting time during the 2009-2010 period, during which time the ACA was the only thing they could get through before they lost that supermajority. THAT is why the Democrats haven't passed things "by Act of Congress". For most things, they don't have the needed votes. By contrast, most of what the GOP has wanted to do for the past 40 years is cut taxes, which is one of the few things you can do with a bare majority. And they've done it every time they take power - under Reagan, under Bush I, under Bush II, under Trump. Funny how decades of locking up hundreds of thousands of black men to get them off the streets, summarily executing them during traffic stops and no-knock raids, and the like can make people feel like victims. In the 1960's and early 70's, black people had a sense that white people were starting to come around and that their civil rights were being protected finally. Then along came the Burger, Rehnquist, and Roberts courts that threw out many of the gains they'd made in the late 50's and 60's. You know, it's kind of rational to change your outlook when circumstances change. I'll take "Things that never happened" for $2,000 and hope it's the Daily Double. Tell me you don't understand Critical Race Theory without saying you don't understand it and make it obvious you only get your warped view of it from right-wing media. Critical Race Theory (which the vast, vast majority of Americans will ever encounter, because it's a specialized academic discipline at the graduate school level) doesn't "induce" people to believe anything. It presents facts - oh, those pesky facts again! - that aren't necessarily obvious regarding the effects of race on various institutions. What people draw from those facts is a different matter. But since you don't even know what CRT is, I can't expect you to understand what we can learn from it. Oh, facts time again. All three cable news networks - Fox, CNN, MSNBC - are declining in viewership. All three. Fox is not "soaring". And in fact, only a tiny percentage of Americans watch ANY of the three on any given day - about 4 million people across all three networks. But given how you're trumpeting FoxNews, it's pretty clear where your brain rot is coming from.

Actually, that is perhaps more accurate, but not *entirely* accurate. The Supreme Court's opinion went further than that. Pre-Dobbs, no state *nor the federal government* could prohibit abortion entirely. Now, under Dobbs, not only can STATES ban abortion, but if we end up with another period like 2017-2018, when the GOP has the presidency, the House and the Senate, they can pass a *federal* ban on abortion, nationwide, and SCOTUS has said there's no constitutional impediment to doing so. You can also bet the farm that if those 3 entities are controlled by the GOP, the Senate GOP majority will kill the filibuster for abortion legislation in a heartbeat. Their right-wing base will demand it. And if such a ban were to pass, it would require the Democrats to again control all three - not an easy task given the bias of the Senate towards Republicans, because of the number of sparsely populated red states that get the same number of senators as giant blue states - in order to repeal that ban. You are correct on the last number (though several states are in fact likely to join that number). But in fact, only 15 states actually protect the right to an abortion, meaning that in 35, there's no protection against a sweeping change if the legislature ends up in the hands of the GOP (and they're very good at gerrymandering, which SCOTUS has also blessed).

I suspect that there have been 110 pages total here for some time because it takes so long to "fill" a page with new topics (ie story threads). The oldest posts in this topic go back to mid-2010, which is shortly after the domain "breedingzone.com" was first registered. Those earliest posts are by RawTop, and I know he "seeded" (pun intended) that forum to get things going. Shortly afterward, a member named "HotLoad84" posted a large number of stories salvaged from other poz-related fiction sites that had gone or were going defunct. So my perception, at least, is that there are no stories "missing" due to aging off the system. There are 20 topics per page. On the opening page right now, there are two pinned folders/topics, so 18 "rotating" topics on the first page with the most recent posts within them. But even among those 18, the least-recently-added-to topic was updated last on July 25. Since that date, only two new stories/topics have been added, so (shifting everything down) there are still only two more topics on the final page (110) than there were on July 25. In other words, most of the activity here is shuffling the order of topics, moving different ones to the top of the "most recently updated" stack, without actually increasing the number of topics very much. Currently, page 110 has four topics (the least-recently-updated), so it will take 17 more new stories/topics added to the system in this forum before it advances to page 111. Given that we get maybe one actual new story every five to ten days, it's going to be quite a while before that happens (unless there's a spate of creative writing in the near future). At one new story per week, it would be near Christmas before the system had expanded enough to require a page 111.

And again with respect to the abortion issue: Of course one is free to have the opinion that abortion is morally wrong or that it ought to be illegal. That's an opinion. My opinion may be otherwise, and it's also just an opinion. It's also my opinion that the current Supreme Court got things right in Roe v Wade and Casey v Planned Parenthood*, but again, that's an opinion. I'm not stating that as a fact. But you can't defend that opinion with a falsehood (like lying about the relative safety of abortion vs. pregnancy to term for women) and not expect to be called on it. *For the non-legal minds here: Roe held there was a right to privacy that extended over the decision to have an abortion and established the trimester system for regulating it: for the first three months, when science at the time made it statistically safer to abort than to continue pregnancy, the state could not interfere with abortion other than basic sanitary-type regulations applicable to all health care providers. For the second three months, which was the remainder of the pre-viability period, states could regulate abortion narrowly, only insofar as to ensure that it was safely done to protect the health and safety of the pregnant woman. In the third trimester, which coincided with the then viability period (the time after which a prematurely delivered fetus could survive, with medical care, outside the uterus), states could prohibit abortion unless it was necessary to protect the pregnant woman's life or health. Casey, coming 19 years later, affirmed the central holding of Roe (that there was a constitutional right to abortion) but changed the calculus, in part because science had advanced in making later abortions safer and also in being able to save increasingly less developed fetuses. The Court's new framework was that prior to viability (by then, back to about 23 weeks at the absolute outside), states could regulate abortion so long as it did not impose an "undue burden" on the woman seeking an abortion. After viability states could prohibit abortion, as before, with the exceptions for life or health of the pregnant woman. While Casey was intended to clarify the abortion right, the question of "What is an undue burden and how do we determine that?" caused an even greater increase in abortion litigation, as states increasingly tried to impose draconian regulations on abortion while claiming they were not an undue burden. All the issues that have been fought over in the last 30 years - waiting periods, forced listening to fetal "heartbeats", provision of (often disingenuous or downright mendacious) literature about "options", increasingly shorter time periods in which to seek an abortion, requiring abortion providers to be fully licensed outpatient surgical centers - all of those stem from the "undue burden" language, which became a constantly shifting goalpost.

Sure, there's plenty of opinion on here. Most of it isn't mislabeled as facts - it's clearly what one person (the poster) thinks. I might post, for instance, that I think the Supreme Court has a good shot at overturning its previous decisions on same-sex marriage. That's an opinion. But I present that opinion with supporting facts: for instance, the legal theories that Clarence Thomas has expressed clearly in writing, including that there is no basis for protecting a right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution and that it should be overturned. Or, for instance, the fact that Justices Alito and Roberts have also expressed a hostility to same-sex marriage in their dissenting opinion in Obergefell. Or that Kavanaugh, more recently, has written that he does not believe the Civil Rights Act protects people on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity (while even Gorsuch and Roberts conceded it does). It's a FACT that Thomas has written this - in Supreme Court concurring opinions, no less. That's not my opinion. It's a FACT that Kavanaugh wrote a dissenting opinion in Bostock (Civil Rights Act protects gays/transgender persons) specifically rejecting the idea that the law covers us. That's not my opinion. Likewise with the case that is under discussion. The facts (yes, facts) are clear: the death rate of pregnant women from having an abortion in the U.S. is a fraction of the death rate of pregnant women who carry to term (or until they die of pregnancy complications along the way). I'd argue - and this is an OPINION - that this discrepancy reflects the absolutely awful state of health care in this country, where so many poorer pregnant women have little to no access to prenatal care. I can't prove that - there might well be other factors involved - but that's my OPINION, backed up by FACTS such as the much higher death rate of pregnant women who are poor compared with those who are middle and upper class. In other words, maybe you need to read more carefully to determine what's presented as fact (and whether it's backed up by evidence) and what's presented as opinion (which can be backed by evidence or not, but which is personal to the poster). One final note: There's a famous quote from Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the late senator from New York: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not to his own facts." But just because someone is free to have an opinion does not mean he's free from having that opinion mocked, especially if there's no factual basis for that opinion. I could, for instance, have the opinion that the moon is, in fact, made of green cheese, and that all known evidence to the contrary is, in fact, "fake news". My right to that opinion does not somehow render it worthy of respect.

This is confusing. You say you went after every "pause" (presumably you mean "poz") guy and chased "till I had AIDS". If you become HIV positive, continuing to chase until you have AIDS (which is the end stage of being HIV positive, not the act of becoming positive) is pointless, because it's not going to speed up the process. And you say you're on meds, so if you are, then then there's no reason you would have needed to stop seeking out HIV+ partners once you became positive or once you developed AIDS (if you did), because one more poz load isn't going to change the calculus one iota.

To answer your question more fully: This site as a whole, and this forum (Bug Chasers and Poz Friendly Neg Guys) in particular, are a mix of truth and fiction, with much of that fiction parading as "truth". I'd wager that a substantial majority of those "gift giving tops" who post in that folder are fake - either not poz, or undetectable, or not actually willing to have sex with anyone (or some combination of the three). By contrast, I suspect quite a few of the "bug chasing bottoms" who post are serious - or think they're serious - but most will never be called on to decide whether to go through with it or not because there are so few tops out there deliberately gifting.

I downvoted this because I don't think it's good advice to tell a first-timer to do drugs (even mild ones like pot) before his first time. It's also kind of contradictory to tell someone to take a mind-altering substance and then to focus on being present. I'm not saying pot can't enhance the experience (for some, obviously, it will), but it certainly doesn't help you to focus on the here and now. I also get that inhibitions can be lowered that way. But for a first-timer, inhibitions are a safeguard. They're the body's way of telling you this is a new and unfamiliar situation, and they keep you alert. Particularly with a hookup who may not know a novice's lack of sexual experience, knocking down those inhibitions might well lead to harm (not from the drug, but from the hookup).

Are you in the minority? Yes. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily. If you're happy with being who/what you are, then it doesn't matter one iota whether you're unique or commonplace. Also: being in the minority, or even being rare, does not (in case you were wondering) make you better or special. You are what you are, you like what you like, end of story. My question: Am I alone in wondering what the point of this topic is?

There is ALWAYS a paper trail for this sort of thing. It's a prescription medication, so there will at a minimum be a prescription record at the prescribing end and at the pharmacy/filling end. And since you want low-cost, that means a prescription assistance program, and those always have paperwork. The paperwork is largely confidential, of course (HIPAA rules) but without knowing what you're trying to conceal, it's hard to advise. If you simply want to make sure that someone in particular doesn't find out - like a parent or a spouse/partner - then get a P.O. Box somewhere, use that as your mailing address, and don't give anyone else permission to get information about your medical history with the providers. That's not particularly difficult. In any event, the starting point for finding low-cost PrEP would probably be getyourprep.com (which redirects to [think before following links] https://readysetprep.hiv.gov/).

I think if you (a) spot something demonstrably untrue (b) posted by a Democrat and (c) link to evidence that it's clearly not true, then I believe that person should be (and would be) sanctioned as well. Especially if (as in this case) the poster in question was corrected, with citations to prove he was wrong, and he doubled down on his demonstrably false statement, thus proving it wasn't simply an error. I, for one, make mistakes, When an error of mine is pointed out, I try very hard to acknowledge that; and moreover, I concede any "but for" conclusions I drew as well. By which, I mean that if I post Factoid A, and a conclusion that is in turn based wholly on Factoid A, then if Factoid A is disproven, I also withdraw the conclusion I drew from it. ("But for Factoid A, I would not have made this conclusion.") That said, sometimes Factoid A is only one element of several things supporting a conclusion, which means not everything based in part on A will be withdrawn - just those things that depend on A for their truthfulness.

Thanks for clarifying! It is indeed possible that this could happen - in fact, if the constitutional protection for same-sex marriage were overturned by a conservative Supreme Court, that would almost certainly happen - because some states' existing prohibitions on same-sex marriage would kick in again, just like older abortion laws have kicked in, and yet if the marriage was legal at the time it was contracted, a decision like that can't invalidate it. That is possible. But I think it's a little less likely, because you're getting into a pretty clear equal protection problem there. Remember Gorsuch is the one who wrote the opinion that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation IS discrimination on the basis of sex, and Roberts was also in the majority on that one. Even replacing Ginsburg with the Handmaiden, you still have five votes for equal protection.

One of my favorite advice columnists has written, many a time, that sometimes cheating is the least bad option there is, and it's defensible under certain limited circumstances. I don't see any of those here. It would be one thing if you had been with this guy for 15 or 20 years, or you owned a house or business together, AND you'd had a healthy sex life in the past but his interest has dwindled and he's not interested in meeting your needs any longer. But you've been with him all of five months. You haven't had sex yet (oral or anal). You haven't even made out. Dude, he is not your boyfriend. He's a well-meaning friend with no benefits, someone you no doubt want to keep close as a friend (and yay for that), and maybe even socialize together frequently. But - He.Is.Not.Your.Boyfriend. Boyfriends may or may not have actually had intercourse yet - a rare few do wait for a good while before having sex the first time. But you haven't even made out. Does he even know you consider him a boyfriend? As many people above have noted; the person you need to talk with is not us on this board, but him. Or, rather, you need to ask him questions, and then listen to his answers. Such as: --How do you see the relationship between us - good friends, dating, something serious, or what? --If it's in any way romantic, what are your feelings about sex? Are you expecting that we will have it, someday, or is that not important to you? --If he has no interest in sex, but he has romantic feelings for you: What are your expectations regarding my sex needs? Do you expect me to repress them or am I free to satisfy that part of my life elsewhere? --If it's not romantic, that means I'm free to seek romance and/or sex elsewhere, right, and we still have whatever we have in terms of friendship, right? And so on. At the worst, you may break up "whatever this is" - but dude, again, this isn't a boyfriend as things stand now. It's clear you need more than you're getting currently, and the time to find out if you're ever going to get it with him is now, not five years from now when you've bought a house together and then you find out he never intends to have sex. Or not nearly frequently enough to satisfy you.

I'll just note here that (non-legally speaking), having read the case, she should have gone Lorena Bobbitt on him.

I have no idea what "it" is that you're on, but assuming it's a controlled substance, I'd suggest you take this to the chem fiction forum and ask there. My suggestion is that you review the stories posted there (as well as in the General Bareback Fiction, Bug Chasing/Gift Giving Fiction, and (if relevant) the various fetish fiction sections, and see what people are responding to. That should give you some ideas about what people like to read about.

Americans are notoriously bad at math. I did a quick sketch to demonstrate to someone why a particular path from my parking spot at work to the building doors had the least-steep rise (and thus was the least stressful to walk in the summer heat), and when I casually mentioned "y=m(x)+b" as the way to determine the slope, he looked at me like I'd grown two heads and wanted to know what kind of engineering degree I had to figure that out. I was like "Dude, this is 10th grade geometry" but he couldn't grasp the basics of the math involved, even with no numbers.

The official recommendation is two doses four weeks apart, which is projected to give very long term immunity. What's being bandied about is the fact that apparently a single dose gives you that level of protection for a year or two, at a minimum, and doses are in short supply, but are expected to grow in availability over the fall and winter. The logical conclusion to draw from that is, if you only take one dose now, the second can go to someone else as HIS first dose, and both of you can get your second dose later in the year, before immunity wanes, and thus the current supply will protect a lot more people. It's being suggested as a way to help get this under control faster by vaccinating more people with the available supply.

You mean that the Supreme Court of Canada is holding that you can't legally fuck someone while intentionally violating the terms of the consent they gave? Shocking. Good for them.

If your advisor has signed off on this destruction of materials, then that's one thing, but if that's something you've chosen to do on your own, I urge you to rethink this, for a couple of reasons. First: it's not unknown for there to be challenges later to your research (not in this area in particular, but in general). It happens not only with academic research, but professional research as well. In particular, in the sciences, some may well question whether your sources were real, etc. Having those recordings, and not just your notes, will help validate your research. What you don't want to do is end up in a situation where someone is alleging you made up most of your interviewees, and you don't have any concrete way to prove they existed. And even if your adviser has signed off on this: remember that you, not he (or she) will be on the hot seat if your research is challenged. All told, I would look into other options for long-term storage of the original material, even if encrypted, so that you can retrieve it if need be.

Again, made-up bullshit. You know this works both ways, don't you? If it weren't against the rules to target another member, one might envision all sorts of fabricated statistics I could make up about "TotalTop" and his sex life and what he enjoys and his criminal history and god knows what else. But I won't, because that wouldn't be right. The plural of "anecdote" is not "data". Assuming this friend exists, and assuming he actually has a wife, and assuming they actually have at least two children, and assuming they actually did this unnamed, undescribed, unknown "test" you mention, and assuming they did not in fact have an abortion, and assuming they had a boy, and that the first was also a boy, and assuming this second child is in fact healthy and assuming he did in fact turn 5 - a LOT of assumptions for which there is zero evidence, I'll note, other than your word - that still doesn't make fetal tests "notoriously inaccurate" any more than the one time you might have theoretically had trouble with an erection makes you "notoriously impotent". 24% of abortions occur in cases where the couple was using a form of birth control - most often condoms - and the birth control failed. That doesn't birth control isn't very effective; it means that sometimes, it doesn't work. In your world, such people are consigned to carry the pregnancy to term, apparently.

There was a time when I would have said "Well, the Supreme Court has already ruled on that" but these days.... There is a case from decades ago precisely addressing that issue. Texas recognizes common-law marriages - if you agree to be married, live together, and hold yourself out as a married couple for two years, you are legally married under common law. Louisiana does not recognize common-law marriages for its own citizens/residents. A couple who were common-law spouses in Texas came to Louisiana to visit relatives here. The husband was killed in a traffic accident, and the surviving wife sued, under Louisiana law, for various damages. Her right to sue was predicated on her being his surviving spouse - if she wasn't his spouse, she couldn't sue the other driver. The other driver's attorneys tried to dismiss the suit on the grounds that they couldn't have gotten legally married this way in Louisiana, so she wasn't eligible to sue. But the courts held that the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution required Louisiana courts to recognize her marriage, which was valid in Texas where they resided - just as if, say, they were first cousins married in a state that permitted cousins to marry, even if the state where the accident occurred prohibited cousin marriage. But, as I say - with this Supreme Court, who knows what precedent they might throw out?

If I'm reading the thread right, you seem to be saying that people who married in California found themselves "un-married". That's kind of true, kind of not. The circumstance came up twice. The first was when San Francisco unilaterally started issuing same sex marriage licenses in contravention of state law. Ultimately, the courts first ordered the license-dispensing to stop (which SF did) and then later held the marriages null and void because there was no authority for them in the first place. The ruling was, essentially, that a license acquired in violation of law (like one, say, issued to a man and his six-year old daughter) was null and void from the start, and couldn't be retroactively upheld. Later, the state was sued and the Supreme Court of CA held that a ban on same-sex marriages violated the state constitution. and struck down that ban. People rushed to get married while at the same time anti-gay forces pushed a ballot initiative to prohibit same-sex marriages in the CA Constitution. That initiative narrowly passed. This time, the Court held that the marriages had been legally entered into at the time of the marriage, so the state was powerless to void that contract. Later still, the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was challenged in federal court and it was struck down under the US Constitution. Once that was affirmed at the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, same-sex marriage became legal in all the states in the 9th Circuit (a huge swath of the western US). But at no time were the marriages conducted in California AFTER the courts ruled them legal in the state ever voided - just the ones authorized by San Francisco in 2004.

"Many"? Please cite an authoritative source for this adjective. My description for this characterization is "bullshit". I'm not calling you a liar but it sounds to me like you hang out with a rather seedy crowd, if that's actually true. Again: please cite an authoritative source for your bullshit claim that "kill[ing] the infant after he or she is born" occurs in abortion clinics in the USA. "Hi, I just had this baby, and I meant to get an abortion but forgot. Can you take care of killing it for me? Kthanksbye" It's true that the fetus dies. The rest of this paragraph is again fertilizer-quality bullshit. Prior to the horrible Dobbs decision, two-thirds of abortions took place in the first eight weeks of pregnancy, and 88% took place in the first 12 weeks. Others have already pointed out that abortion in the first trimester has a much lower complication and much lower fatality rate than pregnancy, so I'll leave aside your false statement about safety otherwise. I will note, however, that at 12 weeks - less than a trimester - a baby is not "almost developed". If they were, such babies could be saved in a miscarriage in a neonatal care unit. As it is, the youngest developed fetus to survive a premature delivery was 21 weeks, 1 day along. Anything before that, by definition, the baby is not "almost developed". More importantly, by that point, nobody's using abortion as casual birth control. A woman who has gone 20 weeks into pregnancy is almost guaranteed to want the child, but tragically, abortion is sometimes the safer and saner option. Abortions at this stage almost always involve something like severe fetal abnormalities that, IF the fetus survives to delivery, will almost certain end in a painful death. Sometimes the abortion is to remove a fetus that is already dying and has no chance of survival, and removing it from the mother is her only chance at survival as well. The point ought to be obvious: these are decisions that a woman should make, in consultation with her health care providers, and what you or I or anyone else thinks about it really shouldn't matter one fucking bit. Now, would I agree by the third trimester, absent such a clear reason, abortion shouldn't be permitted? I could be persuaded. But the thing is, under Roe and Casey, states could ALREADY prohibit such abortions, because they're past the point of viability. What the Supreme Court said in Dobbs is, in essence, a state can prohibit all those circumstances you say you'd support a right to abortion in - that states can, in fact, prohibit it entirely, even to save the life of the mother, and there's nothing anyone can do to stop a state from doing so. And in fact, that's effectively what some states have already done. So don't pretend you're some sort of reasoned moderate who recognizes that there are some limited circumstances where it should be protected - because you cannot, repeat cannot, square that with the Dobbs decision. It's not possible.

It is true that MANY DECADES before the Civil War, there were some slaves in the Northern states. Let's look at the numbers, shall we, since we have the census data for every decade starting with 1790. In that first census, there were zero slaves in Massachusetts (which then included Maine). There were 475,327 persons in Massachusetts (more than any state except Virginia). There were 16 slaves in Vermont, 158 in New Hampshire, 948 in Rhode Island. In total, in that first census, for states above the Mason-Dixon line, there were 49,257 slaves out of a total of 2,027,248 persons, so roughly 2.4% of the population north of the Mason-Dixon line was a slave. By contrast, none of the states south of the Mason-Dixon line had fewer than 12,430 slaves (Kentucky, which was sparsely settled at that point). The 49K slaves in the entire northern US pales in comparison with South Carolina (107,094 slaves), North Carolina (100,572 slaves), Maryland (103,036 slaves), or Virginia (a whopping 292,627 slaves). All told, there were 645,023 slaves in the six southern states out of a total population there of 1,866,387 people. In other words, 34.5% of all persons in the six southern states were enslaved. Let's leap ahead to the eve of the Civil War, to 1860. In that year, there were a grand total of 18 slaves in New Jersey and 1,798 in Delaware. Those were the only states of the original 13 where slavery was still legal, and only tangentially so (the reason numbers are so low). That's a total of 1,816 slaves in the northern states, out of 18,912,763 persons, or roughly one in every 200,000 people. In the slaveholding (that is, southern) states, there were 3,948,713 slaves among a total of 12,128,077 persons, or 32.5%. Now, as to making money off slaves: it's true that for a time, the slave trade flourished in both northern and southern ports, and banks in the north made a profit financing the purchase of ships and their human cargo. But the importation of slaves was illegal after 1808, or in other words, for more than 50 years before the Civil War. Thereafter, northern banks continued to profit by financing land purchases, slave acquisitions, and agricultural pursuits, that's true. But that enriched, as always, the wealthy banker class and not the average Northerner. And it's worth noting that by 1860, a lot of that finance had moved south, to New Orleans and Charleston and other southern port cities. In other words the north had largely purged itself of the limited stain of slavery those states had incurred by the founding of the country. The South? Not one bit. Zero. Nada. Pretending you know something about history when you display this sort of ignorance of what the actual numbers show only betrays one's ignorance.

Potato, Potahto.