A quick quote from Jefferson

Post Reply New Topic

Besides, the federal government can suspend civil liberties and declare martial law when it feels it is necessary as well.

Really, our Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments are only applied and used when convenient. As long as Burger King is open and the NFL is playing, all is hunky dory. At the end of the day though, the Federal government can do whatever it likes.

It is much easier for the elites to give the appearance of democracy and keep their control through indirect means.

that is the means by which Revolutions are avoided. If the French ruling classes had been less blatant there never would have been a French Revolution in 1793. Perhaps King Louis would have had to give up some power, but he would have kept his head.

But what you say cuts another way. If the people of the U.S. in their righteous disgust decided to muster to political will to curtail the excesses of the politicians and their clients in the financial community some redress could happen without violence. The people who govern (or better still, rule us) read history as well as the rest of us. They know what kind of bile and pus broke out in the French Revolution too. They will give ground if they are forced to give ground.

ruveyn

We have a legal procedure for amending our laws. Until those laws are changed, they are the law of the land, and that cannot be seriously debated. Now, some laws are more fundamental than others. I think we can all agree that whether or not alcohol is legal to consume is nowhere near as foundational to our legal and governmental system as, for instance, a guarantee of due process.


They will need a constitutional amendment to achieve that if they do it legally. I will certainly not be the only one to oppose them, and I highly doubt their efforts will succeed given the high level of agreement generally needed for an amendment to the Constitution.


In those particular cases, Obama took the right side, and it happened to be the side of minorities. Heck, on the Mosque he didn't even come out in favor of it; he merely pointed out the obvious fact that they are entirely within their legal rights and we should not allow petty demagogues to chip away at American civil liberties.


Who you want to be friends with is no concern of mine. I'm not interested in making friends with business majors. But the issue comes up if you own a business and you won't hire a qualified minority applicant, or if you refuse to serve minority customers, etc.


At this point I just feel sorry for the world of needless fear you have cocooned yourself into.

Why not just ball up into a quivering mass and start crying? Cross to the other side of the street? If there is anyone actually looking for a target, you're just screaming "WEAKNESS!! !! !" at the top of your body language lungs with such a desperate attempt to avoid someone.

I'm glad I am as I am, as opposed to spending my days (edit)



It is becoming clearer and clearer to white people in America that the government will from here on out always send white folks to the back of the line. Minorities will always be treated preferentially from here on out.............. No chance that groups like the NAACP will ever relinquish all of their "leg up" programs and the preferential status that they currently enjoy. Minorities will likely continue to retain all of thier preferential perks, even after they become the majority. For whites, it is a far cry from the esteem and pride whites enjoyed in this country as recently as 50 years ago.

For younger white people, the future is incredilby dim as older white folks will monopolize the 'white quota" for jobs, supreme-court appointments, etc. For American whites, the younger you go, the future gets dimmer and dimmer. Older white baby boomers have had ample time at least to properly insulate themselves against the coming minority takeover.

Younger white people therefore have no vested interest in or reason to support a government that is always going to look after their interests lastly.



I'm actually busy starting my own business and I'll hire who I please, regardless of quotas.

Its almost as if you can't get more than 10 whites together in a room without a minority to "supervise" and "report" to make sure that the white males stay quiescent and don't get too uppity.

-------

Anyway, I recoginze completely that blacks suffered terribly in the great human tragedies of the slave trade and slavery. Still, here are some facts.

A number of Free Blacks in America were also slaveowners. Granted, there weren't many of these, but American blacks still benefited from the institution as well. Should the descendents of 'black slaveowners' also get 'reparations?' And I certainly don't feel that immigrant Somali and Haitian blacks and their progeny should also be privy to reparations, for obvious reasons.

Also, the slave trade was carried out with the full complicity of the more powerful African kingdoms. Many black slaves were at first enslaved by other africans. Black Africans generated their own profit from the institution.

In early America, there was also a form of white slavery, called indentured servitude, which was only a smalll step up from black slavery.............. Today's PC history books try and draw up indentured servitude as a compeletly benign contract that whites "willingly" signed. The fact is though that thousands of poor Irish, English, Germans, and other white Europeans were rounded up wholesale and shipped to America to populate the colonies. They were treated every bit as poor as black slaves, if not poorer.

Indentured servants, especially the Irish, were regarded as cheap human fodder even more so than "valuable black fieldhands."

The institution of indentured servitude actually remained quite strong up until 1750 or so. When you think about it from about 1610 to 1750, that compromises several generations of white indentured servants who were slaves for all intents and purposes. Mabye they should get reparations too?

Some whites were willing indentured servants and signed contracts lasting 10 years or so to work the land of a proprietor. But indentured servitude went on at the same time that the 'Press-Gangs' were fully active in Britian and other European countries, dragooning men completely against their will into the Navies and Armies. Indentured servitude was no different. Many Europeans were still basically serfs at that time who were shipped en masse to America as property of their overlords. Irish warriors against Cromwell were punished by a mass deportation to the Americas.

Also, the insitution of Slavery was hardly unique to Europeans. Europeans were as much on the receiving end of being enslaved as they were the slavers..............

The Barbary pirates made a living of slave-raiding the coasts of Spain and Italy with their corsairs. The Barbary corsairs launched slave raids as far north as Greenland, Iceland, Scotland, and Scandinavia. In fact the French footballer Zadine is the descendent of these white slaves who long ago were forcibly relocated to Algeria. Ottoman-financed Barbary pirates like Barbarossa terrorized the Mediterranian sea and enslaved thousands of Christian whites, and chained them to galleys. This Barbary activity actually continued all the way into the 19th century.

Further east, Islamic raiders under Ottoman Aegis raided all over the Ukrainian steps and into Poland and Russia to dragoon Slavic slaves. Long chains of slavic slaves formed long columns all the way to Constantinople. The Ottomans even had their own system of Christian slavery, and military slavery with converted Janaissary Christians into Muslims. Christian slavery was a boom business in the Ottoman empire.

Of course, the liberal history books completely ignore all of this and focus almost totally on black slavery.



Oh my, we can't seriously debate our laws ??? This just screams oppression. Why can't we debate our amendments?

Last edited by Hanotaux on 22 Aug 2010, 8:56 pm, edited 3 times in total.

When was that implied? AFAIK, Orwell stated that he had multiethnic friends, and that he noticed that all were the same, regardless. I don't have much friends, as a matter of fact, I hardly have any, but I have known people of different ethnic groups, and I have noticed that they are all the same, for good as well as for bad, the same. And evidence of that seems noticable and supported in a multiethnic and multicultural environement.


Yes, I always new Obama was half gangsta and half white

Really though, avoiding someone just for being black, wether it is fear for assuming it must be a "gangsta" or the sort, that is discrimination based on race, because it is based on being black, therefore it is racism, and before stating again that you are racialist instead, racialism is considered a form of racism, heck! the nazis were racialists. (Goldwin's law doesn't apply here)

I'm not going to address your crazy conspiracy theories beyond pointing out that we do not have either racial quotas or reparations in this country. The Supreme Court ruled decades ago that there can be no government-imposed racial quotas. No one with serious political power has ever attempted to move toward reparations.

Also, I have never seen a textbook play down indentured servitude. It has alway been presented as being little better than slavery.

None of my friends talk like that.


Have useful, marketable skills and you will find a job that pays the bills.


Because a) Most history courses in American primary/secondary education focus on American history, in which black slavery played a much more prominent part, and b) the other examples you gave were much smaller-scale.


Do you have terrible reading comprehension, or are you deliberately misreading my post? What cannot be debated is that they are the law of the land. You can certainly advocate to change them if you wish, but I don't think you'll find many supporters who aren't wearing white hoods already.

Those and similar comments are outright raciest and, thus, inappropriate for WP. Figure out a way to amend your arguments so I don't feel compelled to take them out.

That's me being a moderator.

You say that as if you think there ARE quotas applicable to a private business. There are not. If anyone has told you otherwise, they are ignorant and intentionally trying to incite anger.

HOWEVER, you are bound to follow anti-discrimination policies. If applicants can show that you consistently and intentionally throw out qualified resumes simply because the person is or sounds like they belong to a certain racial group, you will be sued. If you refuse to promote the clear and obvious best performer for a reasons that can only be related to race, you will be sued. And so on. What private businesses are held to are FAIR practices. Now, how that will affect your business will depend on what type of business it is. The funny thing about certain professions is that few people of color seem to study for them or otherwise attempt go into them; mine is one of those, and it actually is a shame and a liability, to my eyes. But, for someone who doesn't want to deal with diversity, I guess it would be an asset. I sincerely hope you have an industry like that, to avoid a lot of hurt on everyone's part.

That's me posting as a member.

From the site rules:



I hate to be one to nit-pick, but the rules say you can't use racist language, not that you can't express racist opinions. This place is pretty quick to condemn racism all by itself, threatening official sanction against unpopular opinions only lends them an undeserved credibility and the nobility of persecution. Better to let the forum take care of itself on this one IMHO.

There, I edited it out.....................

Goodbye.

I agree with you that sarcastically using stereotypical ebonics is perhaps over the line.

I respect that you have site rules so I shall post no more on any of these issues or in this sub-forum. It is obvious anyway what the party-line is.

What your rules are is your own business and I respect that.

also, with regards to quotas, I was talking more about prospective quotas. And Affirmative action/EO is alive and well in the USA. You can do what you want, but it doesn't matter for me as I will do what I please.

I'll ignore anyone's applications if I please. The liberal and federal enforcements of 'anti-racism' are ridiculous.

Also, I don't care at all about being called "Racist." Its merely a buzzword designed to insult and ostracize those who don't conform to minorty-culture apotheosis.

Clearly to even discuss this issue without tiptoeing is completely off-limits. Its really screwed up how much thought control is leveled in preventing people from discussing these issue(s.)

The liberal brainwashing has really sunk in deep around these parts.

Last edited by Hanotaux on 22 Aug 2010, 9:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Well, honestly, I'd have to say this is likely a more complicated line. Yes, this might just refer to the n-word, but I would guess that "offensive" allows this to be offensive opinions being expressed as well. Particularly of note is the fact that it isn't just "language" but also "Posting offensive content". I would have to argue that PPR should have looser ground simply to allow these issues to be discussed without undue burden on certain participants. However, I could still see a case for attacking Hanotaux on these grounds because Hanotaux isn't actually presenting ideas so much as saying crap, which means that he isn't even that serious of a disputant. I mean, codorac will at least have a more systematic approach.

Yeah, everyone else but you is brainwashed. Damn those horrible black people who are so unevolved that they can't be leaders or anything other than gansters and homies but are so evolved as to scheme the most grandiose takeover of the most powerful nation in the world and brainwash the population at large.

A little History lesson.

-First, the romans have been influed by the etruscans.

-They adopted the phoenixan alphabet.

-Then they been influed heavilly by the ancient greeks.

-The roman culture had spread on most Europe, including the celts peoples of Gaul and Britain.

-Romans converted to a religion of jewish origin.

-Germans peoples invaded roman empire, the two culture had merged through the middle ages.

-Spain have seen a civilisation with a mix of Islam, Jewish and Christian religion.

-Arabs bring numbers of indian origins and brought back sciences to Europe.

-Colonists of the New World adopted some elements of amerindians cultures, which in turn influed the Enlightnment.

-German mercenaries have been hired by the englishs to fight the rebelling americans colonies, some have established themself in Canada and brought christmas tree.

-Irish immigration broung old pagan traditions like halloween to Canada and USA.

-Nowaday eastern religions and philosiphical/cultural concepts are popular in the west, and we can watch anime.

Really, I don't fear much outside cultural influences.

Given that I'm hearing some valid opinions on different interpretations of the rules and how they apply to these statements, I am open to discussion.

Here was my original thinking, and why I felt the statements crossed the line even, if the specific words did not.

1) The statements are offensive to minorities, although that by itself is not actually enough given that this is PPR.
2) There is no attempt to argue the merits of the statements; they are used as argumentative facts, which I do not believe they are. Combine THAT with the fact that they are, in fact, offensive to certain posters, and it starts to look more like provocation than substantive debate.
3) Statements intended to belittle and provoke do violate the TOS.
4) And, yes, the thinking clearly displays racist opinions, which I don't find appropriate on a board that is, in fact, advocating a version of minority rights, ie that of the AS in an NT world.

If we can't talk about how to draw lines here on a complex question like this one, where and when can we? So, go for it. I think it fits in with the discussion.

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 22 Aug 2010, 10:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.