white slaves
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
richardbenson
Xfractor Card #351
Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,553
Location: Leave only a footprint behind
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
richardbenson
Xfractor Card #351
Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,553
Location: Leave only a footprint behind
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
There's a lot more nonsense than this to be dealt with...
I really dislike groups that place a date on His return though, it just shows ignorance of what He said ("no man knows the day nor the hour" and "only the Father knows"), sure He could come back in the next nanosecond, or the next kiloyear, but only God the Father knows.
richardbenson
Xfractor Card #351
Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,553
Location: Leave only a footprint behind
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
You are mis-informed. Hospitals are required to provide emergency services to all people, regardless of their legal status or ability to pay. When someone is having a heart attack or has a severed limb, they treat that person. So all people have the same low-level of health care available to them. Very few illegal immigrants have free high quality health care.
Here is a quote from one anti-immigration source:
http://www.theamericanresistance.com/is ... _care.html
The population of Florida is around 15 million, so each legal resident of Florida spent about $3.50 for health care of illegals in 2002. I submit that each resident of Florida gained far more than $4 from the fact that there are undocumented workers here. The orange crop is a multi-billion dollar industry based on undocumented workers. The hotels around Orlando would not be able to change the sheets each day without undocumented maids. The average construction price for a home was lowered hundreds or thousands of dollars by using undocumented workers. If each illegal alien is costing us less than $4 for health care, then they are getting very little, while society gets a great deal.
People don't always get helped in the hospitals if they don't have the money. Especially if they need a transplant. I dunno if you've stepped out into the real world or not, but I know plenty of people who need to see a doctor but are unable to do so.
Illegal immigration..... Basically my point is here, they are complete unknowns. Would you let a stranger into your house? We know nothing at all about these people. For all we know they could be crazed serial killers. And it's kinda hard to prosecute someone whom you've got no record of even existing.
Also, we need to have a rough idea of how many people are living in our country at one time. How can we, when we've got uncounted thousands of new people pouring over the border every day? Where will we get the resources to support such a massive population?
We need organization and rules. It's that or total chaos. I'm not saying we need some massive fascist state like we're turning to now. I'm actually becoming more tribalistic/anarchist in my views, and more anti-materialistic..... Money is in a way a form of slavery through taxation, I prefer the idea of barter systems. If everyone would just stop paying taxes, stop voting, stop working, just stop this whole technological nightmare we live in, and take the power back I'd be more in support of small tribal communities as opposed to nation states. But realistically I know this won't ever happen. So I'd rather keep the nation states to be honest, I don't trust the implications behind a North American Union.
Stop making excuses, that's all you PC people do is make excuses. Have a damn heart. Hell it may be you getting lost and wandering through the projects one day. And I don't think they'll care how much you hate other white people, or how much you hate yourself for being white.
No, it doesn't grant anyone the right to beat, rob or kill. It does, however, explain why one group is more likely to engage in such activity. I'm not making excuses - I am trying to understand a persistent social problem. Understanding this problem increases the possibilities for solving it.
Yes, Farakan is a racist. I have denounced him here, and elsewhere. The fact that there are black racists does not erase the fact that racism in the US has been predominantly perpetrated by the white community, and that the non-white community has been massively victimized.
No compassion for white victims? I didn't say that. You projected that into my statements.
I don't hate myself for being white. I have no guilt for my skin color or my actions. On the other hand, as a member of a corporation called the United States of America, I feel that the corporation should take responsibility for past injustices it took (whose consequences are quite visible today), and it should take some action to remedy those.
It doesn't warrant anyone with the right to be above the law? maybe you need to take a trip to Sweden or Norway where it's already hit full bloom. A turk can walk up to you and beat you, stab you, and rob you. If you report the incident, your locked up for a hate crime. No s**t. I've spoken to some folks out there, white residents are abandoning their homelands over there now, fleeing for their safety.
It's slowly getting to that point here. Hate groups like La Razza and figure hispanics are the fastest growing minority here. I don't see how it's racist of us not to learn someone else's language either. When you move to a foreign land, it's not their job to stop what theyr doing and learn your language to accomodate you. If I were to move to Japan, I'd learn Japanese. If I moved to Russia, I'd learn Russian. If I moved to Mexico, I'd learn Spanish. If theyr moving into a predominantly English speaking country, they need to learn to speak english. I'm not up to this refusal to adopt to the smallest aspect of our culture. If anything that's racist of them. Nobody is saying that they must give up their culture, but the need to adopt to living in ours, and respect our culture.
People don't always get helped in the hospitals if they don't have the money. Especially if they need a transplant. I dunno if you've stepped out into the real world or not, but I know plenty of people who need to see a doctor but are unable to do so.
And you think that all illegals are getting free organ transplants? Illegals either pay for a doctor visit, or they go to the emergency room and get the minimum amount of patching required by law. Same as other poor citizens. The total cost of health care for illegals that is written off is a miniscule portion of the health budget.
You are mixing two different situations, and doing so illogically. The general low level of access to health care that many legal residents face is no different than the low level that illegals have access to. And the fact that there are some illegals getting a small slice of that emergency room is not causing the health care crisis.
I lived in Scandinavia for five years a while back and my wife is from there. I spent a month there on vacation in 2005. I have never heard of what you claim. I have relatives, friends, and co-workers in Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Iceland. They have complained about many things (as they love to do for hours), but not this. In fact, we have 9 relatives from Scandinavia that are on vacation in the US right now, and they will visit us this weekend. I will ask them about this.
Slavery, above all, was an economic institution. If it wasn't profitable, it wouldn't have survived in the United States. And yes, African-Americans did own slaves because it was profitable. A black man named Anthony Johnson, who had come to Jamestown, Virginia in 1621 as a servant himself, by the 1650s owned slaves. See David A. Price, Love and Hate in Jamestown, p. 198. This in not the only instance, either. When it comes to the question of African-Americans legally owning property, that depended on the law. Remember that in the lead up to the American Civil War, one of the fightin' points was States' Rights. That partly meant that States had the right to write their own laws and the Federal Government couldn't butt in. Laws throughout the States were not consistent and changed fairly dramatically through time. Property ownership for blacks varied from state to state. Yes, they could own property in various places and time periods, and that could include both land and slaves.
Really interesting fact: Slavery was not legally abolished in New York State until . . . guess when? . . . 1827. The history of slavery in the North was longer than we Northerners want to hear about. It's more comfortable to point the finger South.
Z
Zonder, first of all, even though slavery may not have been abolished on the books in the north until later, Africa-American enjoyed much more freedom there and the ability to prosper. There was racism everywhere, but they had greater chances of survival in the north.
Alos, I know all about Anthony Johnson and he was never considered a slave. He was considered a servant to a White family. And, there WERE NOT many like him. Also, you need to look at your timeline. I've already talked about Black and White indentured servants before laws were put on the books making it so that no White man could legally or morally treat a Black as an equal and no Blacks had the same rights, to property and all else, as Whites. I've stated that already.
When I entered this chat, the conversation was on slavery. Slavery. Snake said Blacks enslaved Blacks. The fact is, it's not true. Blacks did not enslave Blacks the way you're thinking that Whites enslaved Blacks. Johnson lived before the state of Virginia even recognized slavery as legal and what Johnson owned were indentured servants who could work their way to freedom.
Here's a passage about Anthony Johnson's life that clearly spells it out. At that time, during the Jamestown Settlement, which you know was the first settlement before we had cohesive laws on the books, this is what is in the records (below). And, as far as owning property, Virginia took back all the land of anyone classified as "Negro," including Johnson's. Like I said, states would not allow Blacks to own property.
In Colonial 1621:
"One of the few recorded histories of an African in America that we can glean from early court records is that of "Antonio the negro," as he was named in the 1625 Virginia census. He was brought to the colony in 1621. At this time, English and Colonial law did not define racial slavery; the census calls him not a slave but a "servant." Later, Antonio changed his name to Anthony Johnson, married an African American servant named Mary, and they had four children. Mary and Anthony also became free, and he soon owned land and cattle and even indentured servants of his own. By 1650, Anthony was still one of only 400 Africans in the colony among nearly 19,000 settlers. In Johnson's own county, at least 20 African men and women were free, and 13 owned their own homes."
Then, in 1670:
"In 1665, Anthony Johnson moved to Maryland and leased a 300-acre plantation, where he died five years later. But back in Virginia that same year, a jury decided the land Johnson left behind could be seized by the government because he was a "negroe and by consequence an alien."
As I've stated, his land was taken away from him because he was Negroe and by then, laws had been put on the books prohibiting them from owning anything. The point is, Africans on the African continent dealt in the slave trade. Everybody knows that! But, African-Americans never had the power, resources nor opportunity to do the same. And, had they, they most likely would not have. Even if you dig deep enough and find cases like Johnson, I assure you there will be more to the story than meets the eye.
Reactions to slavery occur in a particular context. In the United States, that context is a form of slavery that involved whites enslaving blacks, and it resulted in generations being treated brutally, denied education and property rights, etc. Many conservatives think it is enough simply to stop hurting that race, and things will immediately be fine. Were it only so simple - the effects of slavery linger on.
Monty, I'm a Conservative and I can tell you this much, we're not doing anything to hurt the race. As much as I respect the African-American culture, I will not take any blame for their lingering slavery because the slavery that's destroying them is of their own making.
1) Giving birth to 77% of your children out of wedlock will keep you enslaved to welfare.
2) Dropping out of high school will keep you enslaved to ignorance.
3) Hitting the crack pipe will keep you enslaved to drugs.
4) Committing crimes will keep you enslaved to prison.
5) Not respecting your parents will keep you enslaved to disrespect
6) Gang violence will keep you enslaved to murder.
7) Black on Black crime will keep you enslave to fear.
Shall I go on? This type of slavery is self-made. I feel as a parent it's important to expose my children to all kinds of culture, but I never want them to fall victim to feeling guilty about someone else's self-imposed slavery. This is 2008. People need to take ownership of thier lives and their futures. I hope that one day another Martin Luther King, Jr. comes along and leads them down the path of righteousness.
I agree that ghetto culture is sick. But how did it get that way? What you are describing is an end result of a long downward spiral. That culture has been pushed in a negative direction for a long time, and has a negative momentum. While the problem won't stop until the people involved take it upon themselves to change, your simplistic approach borders on 'blame the victim' IMO.
Sometimes an orphan will spontaneously become hard working, will delay gratification, will develop all the attributes that are considered good and wise. But statistically, being raised by a family in a culture that has an intact culture that values those things raises the odds dramatically. And it cannot be denied that black culture in the US has been forcibly impaired by whites for hundreds of years.
Another question, NewportBeachDude:
Why has the divorce rate gone up relatively rapidly among families in the US Armed Forces? Did they suddenly get morally weak? Or did the stress of prolonged deployments contribute to the break up of those families?? While individuals bear a central responsibility for the survival of their marriage, there is no question that externally imposed stresses will increase the risk of failure.
Sometimes an orphan will spontaneously become hard working, will delay gratification, will develop all the attributes that are considered good and wise. But statistically, being raised by a family in a culture that has an intact culture that values those things raises the odds dramatically. And it cannot be denied that black culture in the US has been forcibly impaired by whites for hundreds of years.
Monty, this type of argument is exactly what Bill Cosby was talking about when he said, "We refuse to take responsibility for our own demise."
Your "impaired" theory is the same old excuse you hear out of the mouths of many out-of-touch Black leaders everyday. I may not be liberal, but this is the one thing I admire about Barack Obama is that he's not walking down that lame victim path. The simple truth doesn't take a Sociologist to know that the majority of African American kids born today are doomed to failure because they come into this world by underage, undereducated parents with little morals, value and respect for anything. This is generation after generation and the blame does not lie with White America or any past injustices. The AA community has become so comfortable with this cultural debauchery that they have a name for it: Baby Mama. Or Baby Daddy. White America is not to blame for anybody's baby mamas or baby daddies and it's unfair to blame innocent Americans for what you alledge is their part in this over history.
Now! If you want to go down the victim path, be careful how far you go down it becauase your argument may put you in a place you don't want to be. There are plenty of hate-minded people out there who feel AA's will never amount to anything, and if you argue that they are damaged due to the psychological impact of slavery and subsequent discrimination, it gives fuel to all of these hate-minded people that they are a throwaway race...one that can't be helped, can't be turned around, is headed for extinction. You see my point? How long can one make that argument...that past injustices are why they're on crack and having babies at 14?
My wife's aunt is a teacher. Teaches kids of all races. The AAs are always at the bottom of her class. Get the worst grades and have the worst promotion record to the next level. Try getting one of their parents to come and meet with her? Try getting them to answer a phone call. Try getting one of them to respond to a letter telling them their kid needs extra assistance. Forget it! Not interested. Don't care. Yet, when they flunk out, here they come yelling at the principal, "You're picking on my kid 'cause they're Black." You can predict who the parents are: young, young, young. Bad attitude. Poor language and communication skills. Or, you get the grandparents that are caring for the kids 'cause the parents are in prison or strung out, and these wonderful grandparents are elderly and doing the best they can with little help.
As long as you blame others for your failure instead of turning it around and striving for success, the blame will always keep you down. I see hope in that culture. First, the blame needs to end and reconstruction needs to begin. Then, they need better leaders who will send out the right messages. The churches need to preach it from the pulpit. The government needs to take away incentives to keep the women on welfare. They need to stop having children when they're children. And, they need to stay in school and take it seriously. I also think they need martial law when it comes to gang members, who are nothing less than domestic terrorists.
If these simple things were changes, I see an entirely different future for AAs. I see one of hope and fulfilled dreasm. One where they don't have to walk in shame, but hold their heads up high because they are living the American dream.
Regarding your divorce comment, divorce has gone up not only in the armed forces, but everywhere else in this country. It's gone up in all other countries as well. There are countries with worse divorce rates that ours, but it's still not stopping people from getting married and trying to have a stable family life. That's more than you can say for most AAs who never even bother with marriage. That's why we have the baby mama and baby daddy.
I'm not talking about the gradual increase across most groups over the past several decades in western countries - I am talking about a sudden, sharp increase in divorce rates that was seen in the US Armed Forces in the first years after the invasion of Iraq. Divorce rates among that group tripled over a 3 year period. It is an example of how a large group of normal people will experience a higher rate of social problems when external pressures are increased.
“We’ve seen nothing like this before,” said Col. Glen Bloomstrom, a chaplain who oversees family-support programs. “It indicates the amount of stress on couples, on families, as the Army conducts the global war on terrorism.”
Between 2001 and 2004, divorces among active-duty Army officers and enlisted personnel nearly doubled, from 5,658 to 10,477, even though total troop strength remained stable. In 2002, the divorce rate among married officers was 1.9 percent — 1,060 divorces out of 54,542 marriages; by 2004, the rate had tripled to 6 percent, with 3,325 divorces out of 55,550 marriages.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8406365/
I am not (as you imply) a liberal who denies the role of individual decisions and the micro scale. It is critical. Nor am I a conservative that denies the evidence that macro scale factors are also important. On a population level, they are very real. An individual can fail to plan their finances, and slide into bankruptcy in the best of economic climates. The most prudent person that carefully budgets and saves can get wiped out by external forces in a depression or through other unfortunate circumstances entirely beyond their control.
That message has being going out a long time - AA churches are more socially conservative than most others. How many sermons have you sat through in AA churches?
I suppose you would say that the hundreds of disparate Indian reservations and the Maori and Aborigine reserves fall under the same simple explanation - their current predicament has nothing to do with genocide, nothing to do with destroying their culture and way of life and stealing their resources and boxing them into areas where they aren't allowed to manage their own lives. All of those commonalities are merely coincidental. The root cause is they are wallowing in their victimhood??
