Mitch McConnell: Tea Party Is "Ruining" GOP

Page 3 of 8 [ 118 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next

sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,672
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

03 Dec 2013, 3:56 pm

@Thelibrarian:

Have you trotted out your "most slaves didn't have it that bad" argument yet?


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,089
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

03 Dec 2013, 3:57 pm

Without the efforts of Abraham Lincoln -- Republican this nation would be divided into at least two pieces.

Ruveyn, I agree completely. This nation should have been divided into two pieces. The red state/blue state divide is nothing more than that same conflict. Northerners and Southerners are two distinctly different nations, with different values, and they should be allowed to rule themselves. Secession is inevitable.



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,089
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

03 Dec 2013, 3:58 pm

sonofghandi wrote:
@Thelibrarian:

Have you trotted out your "most slaves didn't have it that bad" argument yet?


Just how badly did most slaves have it? Are you aware that Southern slaves are the only slave population known to history that reproduced itself?

Here is a brief article that accurately depicts Southern attitudes towards slavery. If you care to read it, you can make up your own mind:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphine_LaLaurie



sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,672
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

03 Dec 2013, 4:03 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
Look at it this way: There are 1.1 million total troops in the US Army. The border with Mexico is a little less than two thousand miles. If you do the math, you will find that we could place a troop every ten feet. Do you really believe that having a soldier placed every ten feet along our southern border couldn't stop illegal immigration?[/b]


Your figures only work if:
1. you only monitor the Mexican/US border and ignore the Canadian border and every single coastal area.
2. every single member of the military was on border patrol duty and none anywhere else in the country (or world).
3. every single military member spent 24/7/365 on duty along the border.

Comparing the NSA collection of electronically obtained and maintained data and monitoring an expansive border for human movement is like saying gmail should be able to operate the US Postal Service's sorting and distribution networks.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,089
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

03 Dec 2013, 4:14 pm

sonofghandi wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Look at it this way: There are 1.1 million total troops in the US Army. The border with Mexico is a little less than two thousand miles. If you do the math, you will find that we could place a troop every ten feet. Do you really believe that having a soldier placed every ten feet along our southern border couldn't stop illegal immigration?[/b]


Your figures only work if:
1. you only monitor the Mexican/US border and ignore the Canadian border and every single coastal area.
2. every single member of the military was on border patrol duty and none anywhere else in the country (or world).
3. every single military member spent 24/7/365 on duty along the border.

Comparing the NSA collection of electronically obtained and maintained data and monitoring an expansive border for human movement is like saying gmail should be able to operate the US Postal Service's sorting and distribution networks.


Your argument is hardly realistic since most of the US coastline is fully developed, and illegals would be spotted immediately. It is also the case that there are few problems with the US/Canadian border; it is the longest unguarded, and most peaceful, border in the world. But let's go ahead and assume the entire US border needs guarding equally.

The total border, including coastline, is about twenty thousand miles. This would mean a troop every hundred feet. Assume only one-quarter of them could be on duty at any given time, and that is still one troop for every four hundred feet.

Gmail could undoubtedly do a better and more efficient job with the mails. Just look at how the US government runs their health care website.



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,089
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

03 Dec 2013, 4:29 pm

alpineglow wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Without the efforts of Abraham Lincoln -- Republican this nation would be divided into at least two pieces.

Ruveyn, I agree completely. This nation should have been divided into two pieces. The red state/blue state divide is nothing more than that same conflict. Northerners and Southerners are two distinctly different nations, with different values, and they should be allowed to rule themselves. Secession is inevitable.


I'm curious to know which states would align themselves with North and South? Can it be all southern states? what about the more conservative states in the north? Is there a list, or does it follow red state/blue state categories?


Alpineglow, that is an interesting, if not horrifying, question. My guess is that the blue states would form one country and the red states would form another. The horrors come into play since there are pockets of Americans in the blue states, and pockets of post-Americans in the red states. This is why I think it is such a shame the South, and like-minded states, weren't to secede in 1861. This war would be over rather than just beginning.

And war is just the word. I don't have time to look for figures, but when India was partitioned into Muslim and Hindu areas, I understand about ten million people died. I'm hoping we can sort out our differences more humanely.

If you want to understand the basis of the red-blue battle lines, the following book is an excellent place to start. This is one of the most fascinating books I have ever read:

http://www.amazon.com/Albions-Seed-Brit ... n%27s+seed



sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,672
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

03 Dec 2013, 5:11 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
sonofghandi wrote:
@Thelibrarian:

Have you trotted out your "most slaves didn't have it that bad" argument yet?


Just how badly did most slaves have it? Are you aware that Southern slaves are the only slave population known to history that reproduced itself?

Here is a brief article that accurately depicts Southern attitudes towards slavery. If you care to read it, you can make up your own mind:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphine_LaLaurie


Your single piece of anecdotal evidence does nothing for your arguments. If you want to use wikipedia, then maybe you should read the entry for slavery in the United States. Here are just a few bits that I find most interesting:

Quote:
Of all 1,515,605 free families in the fifteen slave states in 1860, nearly 400,000 held slaves (roughly one in four, or 25%)

...

The early colonists of Virginia treated the first Africans in the colony as indentured servants. They were freed after a stated period and given the use of land and supplies by their former masters.

...

in 1640, the Virginia courts sentenced a black servant, John Punch, to slavery for attempting to escape his indenture.

...

in 1662 Virginia passed a law adopting the principle of partus sequitur ventrum (called partus, for short), stating that any children of an enslaved mother would take her status and be born into slavery, regardless if the father were a freeborn Englishman. This was a reversal of common law practice, which ruled that children of English subjects took the status of the father. The change institutionalized the power relationships between slaveowners and slave women, freed the white men from the legal responsibility to acknowledge or financially support their mixed-race children, and somewhat confined the open scandal of mixed-race children and miscegenation to within the slave quarters.

...

The Virginia Slave codes of 1705 further defined as slaves those people imported from nations that were not Christian, as well as Native Americans who were sold to colonists by other Native Americans. This established the basis for the legal enslavement of any non-Christian foreigner.

...

In a section negotiated by James Madison of Virginia, Section 2 of Article I designated "other persons" (slaves) to be added to the total of the state's free population, at the rate of three-fifths of their total number, to establish the state's official population for the purposes of apportionment of Congressional representation and federal taxation.[25] This increased the power of southern states in Congress for decades, affecting national policies and legislation.[26] The planter elite dominated the southern Congressional delegations and the United States presidency for nearly 50 years.

...

in the 72 years between the election of George Washington and the election of Abraham Lincoln, 50 of those years [had] a slaveholder as president of the United States, and, for that whole period of time, there was never a person elected to a second term who was not a slaveholder.

...

Between 1830 and 1840 nearly 250,000 slaves were taken across state lines.[38] In the 1850s over 193,000 were transported, and historians estimate nearly one million in total took part in the forced migration of this new Middle Passage. By 1860 the slave population in the United States had reached 4 million.[38] As the internal slave trade became a dominant feature of American slavery, individuals lost their connection to families and clans. Added to the earlier settlers' previous glossing over of origins and combining slaves from different tribes, many ethnic Africans lost all knowledge of varying tribal origins in Africa, as most had families who had been in the United States for many generations.

...

Once the trip ended, slaves faced a life on the frontier significantly different from most labor in the Upper South. Clearing trees and starting crops on virgin fields was harsh and backbreaking work. A combination of inadequate nutrition, bad water, and exhaustion from both the journey and the work weakened the newly arrived slaves and produced casualties. New plantations were located at rivers' edges for ease of transportation and travel. Mosquitoes and other environmental challenges spread disease, which took the lives of many slaves. They had acquired only limited immunities to lowland diseases in their previous homes. The death rate was so high that, in the first few years of hewing a plantation out of the wilderness, some planters preferred whenever possible to use rented slaves rather than their own.

...

In Louisiana, French colonists had established sugar cane plantations and exported sugar as the chief commodity crop. After the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, Americans entered the state and joined the sugar cultivation. Between 1810 and 1830, planters bought slaves from the North and the number of slaves increased from less than 10,000 to more than 42,000. Planters preferred young males, who represented two-thirds of the slave purchases. Dealing with sugar cane was even more physically demanding than growing cotton. The largely young, unmarried male slave force made the reliance on violence by the owners “especially savage.”

...

The treatment of slaves in the United States varied widely depending on conditions, times and places. Treatment was generally characterized by brutality, degradation, and inhumanity. Whippings, executions, and rapes were commonplace.

...

Some states prohibited religious gatherings of slaves, particularly following incidents such as Nat Turner's rebellion in 1831. Planters feared that group meetings would facilitate communication and may lead to rebellion.

...

a master could be held criminally liable only if the slave he killed was completely submissive and under the master's absolute control

...

Slaves were punished by whipping, shackling, hanging, beating, burning, mutilation, branding, and imprisonment. Punishment was most often meted in response to disobedience or perceived infractions, but sometimes abuse was carried out simply to re-assert the dominance of the master or overseer over the slave.[61] Treatment was usually harsher on large plantations, which were often managed by overseers and owned by absentee slaveholders; in contrast with small slave-owning families, where the closer relationship between the owners and slaves sometimes resulted in a more humane environment.[62] William Wells Brown, who escaped and became a fugitive slave, reported that on one plantation, slave-men were required to pick 80 pounds-per-day of cotton, while women were required to pick 70 pounds; if any slave failed in his or her quota, they were given lashes of the whip for each pound they were short. The whipping post stood right next to the cotton scales.

...

Sexual abuse of slaves was partially rooted in a patriarchal Southern culture which treated black women as property or chattel.[66] Southern culture strongly policed against sexual relations between white women and black men on the purported grounds of racial purity but, before the late 18th century, the many mixed-race slaves and slave children showed that white men had often taken advantage of slave women.[66] Wealthy planter widowers, notably such as John Wayles and his son-in-law Thomas Jefferson, took slave women as concubines; each had six children with his partner: Elizabeth Hemings and her daughter Sally Hemings (the half-sister of Jefferson's late wife), respectively.

...

To help regulate the relationship between slave and owner, including legal support for keeping the slave as property, slave codes were established. Slave codes were laws established to demonstrate legal sanctions over the black population.

While each state had its own slave code, many concepts were shared throughout the slave states.[70] According to the slave codes, teaching a slave to read or write was illegal, although it often took place as children taught each other.

Even though slave codes had many common features, each state had specific codes or variations that suited the laws in that region. For example in Alabama, slaves were not allowed to leave from the premises of the owner without written consent, nor were slaves allowed to trade goods among themselves. In Virginia, slaves were not permitted to drink in public within one mile of his master or during public gatherings. In Ohio, an emancipated slave was prohibited from returning to the state in which he or she had been enslaved. Slaves were not permitted to carry firearms in any of the slave states.

The code for the District of Columbia defined a slave as "a human being, who is by law deprived of his or her liberty for life, and is the property of another

...

(during the War of 1812) Slaveholders, primarily in the South, had considerable "loss of property" as tens of thousands of slaves[citation needed] escaped to British lines or ships for freedom, despite the difficulties. The planters' complacency about slave "contentment" was shocked by seeing that slaves would risk so much to be free.[78] Afterwards, when some freed slaves had been settled at Bermuda, slaveholders such as Major Pierce Butler of South Carolina tried to persuade them to return to the United States, to no avail.

...

(after the Turner Rebellion)Turner and his followers were hanged, and Turner's body was flayed. In a frenzy of fear and retaliation, the militia killed more than 100 slaves who had not been involved in the rebellion. Planters whipped hundreds of innocent slaves to quell resistance.[84] Across the South, harsh new laws were enacted to curtail the already limited rights of African Americans. New laws in Virginia prohibited blacks, free or slave, from practicing preaching, prohibited blacks from owning firearms, and forbade anyone to teach slaves how to read.[84] Typical was the Virginia anti-literacy law against educating slaves, free blacks and children of whites and blacks, which specified heavy penalties both for student and teacher when slaves were educated.[85]

...

Even though early discussions of scholars such as Eugene Genovese’s argue that slavery was a moribund, inefficient system that was only kept because of cultural reasons, close to 98 percent of the economists nowadays disagree with this possibility and believe that slavery was an investment with good returns compared to other assets.[87] Therefore, the use of human beings in bondage would not have ended in 1860 without the Civil War.

...

Dred Scott and his wife Harriet Scott each sued for freedom in St. Louis after the death of their master on the grounds that they had lived in a territory where slavery was forbidden (the northern part of the Louisiana Purchase, from which slavery was excluded under the terms of the Missouri Compromise). (Later the two cases were combined under Dred Scott's name.) Scott filed suit for freedom in 1846 and went through two state trials, the first denying and the second granting freedom to the couple (and, by extension, their two daughters, who had also been held illegally in free territories). Missouri state precedent for 28 years had generally provided for freedom in such cases during the 19th century, but the State Supreme Court ruled against Scott, saying that "times were not what they once were."

After the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, it denied Scott his freedom in a sweeping decision that set the United States on course for Civil War. The court ruled that, under the Constitution, neither Dred Scott nor any descendant of Africans, slave or free, was a citizen who had a right to sue in the Federal courts, and that Congress had had no constitutional power to pass the Missouri Compromise.

The 1857 decision, decided 7–2, held that a slave did not become free when taken into a free state; Congress could not bar slavery from a territory; and people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves, or their descendants, could not be citizens. A state could not bar slaveowners from bringing slaves into that state. Many Republicans, including Abraham Lincoln, considered the decision unjust and as proof that the Slave Power had seized control of the Supreme Court. Written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the decision effectively barred slaves and their descendants from citizenship. Abolitionists were enraged and slave owners encouraged, contributing to tensions on this subject that led to civil war.[94]

...

The Confederacy was outraged by black soldiers and refused to treat them as prisoners of war. Many were shot, as at the Fort Pillow Massacre, and others re-enslaved.[105]

...

With emancipation a legal reality, white Southerners were concerned with both controlling the newly freed slaves and keeping them in the labor force at the lowest level. The system of convict leasing began during Reconstruction and was fully implemented in the 1880s. This system allowed private contractors to purchase the services of convicts from the state or local governments for a specific time period. African Americans, due to “vigorous and selective enforcement of laws and discriminatory sentencing” made up the vast majority of the convicts leased.[114]

...

the number of soldiers of the Confederacy's Army of Northern Virginia who either owned slaves or came from slave owning households is "almost one of every two 1861 recruits


and a few bonus bits:

Quote:
On February 24, 2007, the Virginia General Assembly passed House Joint Resolution Number 728 acknowledging "with profound regret the involuntary servitude of Africans and the exploitation of Native Americans, and call for reconciliation among all Virginians."[118] With the passing of this resolution, Virginia became the first state to acknowledge through the state's governing body their state's negative involvement in slavery. The passing of this resolution came on the heels of the 400th anniversary celebration of the city of Jamestown, Virginia, which was one of the first slave ports of the American colonies.

On July 30, 2008, the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution apologizing for American slavery and subsequent discriminatory laws.[119]

The U.S. Senate unanimously passed a similar resolution on June 18, 2009, apologizing for the "fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery".[120] It also explicitly states that it cannot be used for restitution claims.[121]


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


JSBACHlover
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2013
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,282

03 Dec 2013, 5:21 pm

I want to share something with the posters on this thread.

When I, a Yankee, moved to Mississippi for a job in the 1990s, I befriended an old man named Joe (he was friends with Eudora Welty and a gentleman in every respect. Joe is in his mid-90s by now and is slipping into senility).

Anyway, back in the 1920s, he was raised by his wet nurse"Tiola" who was black. When this little boy hurt himself he wouldn't go running to his mother but to Tiola. Tiola was considered part of the family. Tiola used to tell Joe stories, and one day she told him a story from her childhood, a story about the day when the slaves were freed. Most of the slave-owners (at least in Mississippi) considered their slaves to be part of the family, and most of the slaves had a genuine love for their masters, who fed them, clothed them, and taught them how to read. The masters did this because they were above all Christians, who felt responsible for their slaves. (This was Tiola's experience.)

Tiola spoke of the day of "emancipation" as a day of sadness. The slave-owners suddenly had no one to run their plantations. Their property (slaves) had been confiscated, so they had no money to hire their former slaves as workers. The slaves for their part didn't know what to do anymore. They were not given any preparation about how to live on their own. Tiola's parents had to fend for themselves now, and the life that Tiola had known on the plantation, being well-fed, taught to read, and playing with the kids (including the owner's children), was suddenly taken away. It was after the emancipation that the days of suffering commenced for her and her family. Everyone became poor, and many starved.

Hearing this story shattered everything I had learned in school and from television.

Of course, this story represents only one person's personal witness of what happened at emancipation. However, it is a real story. I'm certain there are many others.



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,089
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

03 Dec 2013, 5:40 pm

JSBACHlover wrote:
I want to share something with the posters on this thread.

When I, a Yankee, moved to Mississippi for a job in the 1990s, I befriended an old man named Joe (he was friends with Eudora Welty and a gentleman in every respect. Joe is in his mid-90s by now and is slipping into senility).

Anyway, back in the 1920s, he was raised by his wet nurse"Tiola" who was black. When this little boy hurt himself he wouldn't go running to his mother but to Tiola. Tiola was considered part of the family. Tiola used to tell Joe stories, and one day she told him a story from her childhood, a story about the day when the slaves were freed. Most of the slave-owners (at least in Mississippi) considered their slaves to be part of the family, and most of the slaves had a genuine love for their masters, who fed them, clothed them, and taught them how to read. The masters did this because they were above all Christians, who felt responsible for their slaves. (This was Tiola's experience.)

Tiola spoke of the day of "emancipation" as a day of sadness. The slave-owners suddenly had no one to run their plantations. Their property (slaves) had been confiscated, so they had no money to hire their former slaves as workers. The slaves for their part didn't know what to do anymore. They were not given any preparation about how to live on their own. Tiola's parents had to fend for themselves now, and the life that Tiola had known on the plantation, being well-fed, taught to read, and playing with the kids (including the owner's children), was suddenly taken away. It was after the emancipation that the days of suffering commenced for her and her family. Everyone became poor, and many starved.

Hearing this story shattered everything I had learned in school and from television.

Of course, this story represents only one person's personal witness of what happened at emancipation. However, it is a real story. I'm certain there are many others.


This story is pretty typical. The liberal critique of slavery as being "white supremacist" is actually accurate, though liberals are dishonest as to what it means. White supremacy meant that white slaveholders believed that their slaves were incapable of governing themselves, or managing their own affairs successfully, and the job of the slaveholder was to bring civilization to the slave by doing their thinking for them. So, while American slavery wasn't cruel by and large, it was very paternalistic. Rather than being treated hatefully or cruelly, slaves were treated as errant children in need of constant, firm guidance.

One of the more interesting insights of Genovese is that slaveholders tended to be very fond of their slaves, and referred to "my family, both white and black". What shocked the slaveholders upon emancipation was to find out that the slaves didn't always feel the same about their masters, though few harbored any hatreds. After emancipation, the most likely group to leave were the house slaves--those closest to the whites--while the group most likely to stay after emancipation were the field hands--those farthest removed from whites.

An entire journal was written about slavery, and how slaveholders could get the most out of their slaves while still treating them humanely. It is a very interesting read:

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moajrnl/bro ... /debo.html



alpineglow
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,197

03 Dec 2013, 5:47 pm

^ that's quite an intense story jsbachlover. I'm glad you've posted it.
Thelibrarian, I willl check it out if it is at our library.

theLibrarian wrote:
...Alpineglow, that is an interesting, if not horrifying, question. My guess is that the blue states would form one country and the red states would form another. The horrors come into play since there are pockets of Americans in the blue states, and pockets of post-Americans in the red states. This is why I think it is such a shame the South, and like-minded states, weren't to secede in 1861. This war would be over rather than just beginning.

And war is just the word. I don't have time to look for figures, but when India was partitioned into Muslim and Hindu areas, I understand about ten million people died. I'm hoping we can sort out our differences more humanely.


I tend to ask horrifying qusestions. My intent is good. Because, I too would like to see humans sort out their differences more humanely than history suggests.



Last edited by alpineglow on 03 Dec 2013, 5:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,672
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

03 Dec 2013, 5:48 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
Your argument is hardly realistic since most of the US coastline is fully developed, and illegals would be spotted immediately. It is also the case that there are few problems with the US/Canadian border; it is the longest unguarded, and most peaceful, border in the world. But let's go ahead and assume the entire US border needs guarding equally.

The total border, including coastline, is about twenty thousand miles. This would mean a troop every hundred feet. Assume only one-quarter of them could be on duty at any given time, and that is still one troop for every four hundred feet.

Gmail could undoubtedly do a better and more efficient job with the mails. Just look at how the US government runs their health care website.


Your argument is hardly realistic since you assume that no one in the military would need to do any job other than watch the border. I guess in your imagination, no service members handle administration, maintenance and repair, transportation, engineering, cooking, cleaning, communications, command, regulatory compliance, weapons and ordinance handling, training or national defense. And none of them serve overseas. And none of them serve on Navy ships. And none of them ever go on leave. And all of them are as anti-illegal immigration as you are.

The coastlines are well developed, but that only means that illegals have to go a little farther up/down the coast. How many illegal Cubans live in Florida now (most of them didn't come over the Mexican border)? And if you've ever been to a shipping port, you know that spotting and stopping illegals there is damn near impossible. You also ignore the fact that there are plenty of illegals who come under the border.

You just seem to be calling for the majority of our national budget to be used for border patrol. The infrastructure set-up alone would cost a large fortune, and the logistics would be a nightmare. These are the same reasons that gmail would never get into the physical mail game (which is why I used them as an example). I am just saying that the amount of money you spend on border control is exponentially less effective with every dollar you throw at it. I just think that our priority should be long term economic growth, not keeping out people who want a better life. This country was financially built on the labor of immigrants.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


JSBACHlover
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2013
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,282

03 Dec 2013, 5:53 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
After emancipation, the most likely group to leave were the house slaves--those closest to the whites--while the group most likely to stay after emancipation were the field hands--those farthest removed from whites.


Joe speculated to me once that house slaves were the best off because they knew the skills and the proper etiquette required to land jobs in the aristocratic mansions of New York, Chicago, Cleveland, and Philadelphia.



JSBACHlover
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2013
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,282

03 Dec 2013, 6:05 pm

sonofghandi wrote:
You just seem to be calling for the majority of our national budget to be used for border patrol. The infrastructure set-up alone would cost a large fortune, and the logistics would be a nightmare.


I don't understand the above. The United States, under the Department of Defense, built our vast highway system. It was an extraordinary undertaking, tens if not hundreds of thousands of miles of sophisticated roads. And it didn't break the national budget in the least.

So: What in the world can be so hard about building a security wall across the southern border? That kind of undertaking is peanuts compared to what Eisenhower began in the 1950s. Moreover, it would be a great boon for the local economies involved in its construction.

I think there are only two reasons why people say it's too "cost prohibitive" to protect the southern border. 1) They forgot what the U.S. was able to accomplish in the 20th century in regard to infrastructure; or 2) they want illegal immigration.



alpineglow
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,197

03 Dec 2013, 6:11 pm

:thumleft:



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,139

03 Dec 2013, 6:14 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
That's just it. Liberalism made every one of the problems you mention WORSE. Yes, they did free the slaves, but the way they did it meant that the life expectancy of blacks was lower in 1940 than it was in 1860, along with all other Southerners.

Source?

Right here:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Mind-Master-C ... ster+class

Read it and you might learn a thing or two.

Please give me the *actual numbers* instead of just a link to a book on Amazon.

Thelibrarian wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
But it is interesting that the more liberal the country becomes, the fewer rights Americans have; it is called the police state and judicial tyranny.

The so-called "Liberals" (oh, how I hate US political terminology) achieved the following:

I define liberalism as those ideologies originating in the Enlightenment that emphasize individualism, change, universalism, the conceit of advancing freedom, and the conceit of egalitarianism.

Conservatism is defined as conserving a particular people and their ways, in a particular time and place.

As far as hating US political terminology, I'm guessing there isn't much about the US you do like. Am I wrong?

Actually, I am very fond of the 1st, 5th and 14th Amendments (they also nicely add up to 20).

Thelibrarian wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
- Equal rights for African Americans

Examples, please.

The Emancipation Proclamation, Kicking Confederate Ass, The Reconstruction Amendments, Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Thelibrarian wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
- Equal rights for Women

Feminism is an elitist fraud and sham. Feminism serves the elites by doubling the workforce, and commensurately lowering wages. And women are far worse off. Now, in addition to having a home and family to take care of, they also have full-time jobs in addition to their previous responsibilities. It fits in with Orwell's maxim that slavery is freedom, huh?

Indeed. Giving women the right to vote through the 19th Amendment was surely an act of malice that made them worse off.

Other examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillips_v ... ietta_Corp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_v._Reed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh ... _Relations

Thelibrarian wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
- Equal rights for Homosexuals (still needs a proper SCOTUS ruling about State laws, though)

Examples, please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

Thelibrarian wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
- Vast restrictions on the ability of the government to infringe upon individuals rights due to dual incorporation of the 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment (likely the greatest restriction on US government power since The Bill of Rights)

Examples, please

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malloy_v._Hogan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benton_v._Maryland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago,_B ... v._Chicago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolling_v._Sharpe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._B ... _Education

Thelibrarian wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
- Vast restrictions on the ability of the government to infringe upon individuals rights by establishing a constitutional right of privacy due to Roe vs. Wade (affecting up to half of the US population)

Exactly where is the right to privacy guaranteed in the Constitution?

The 1st, 4th and 9th Amendment, and according to Supreme Court case law in the following cases:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

Thelibrarian wrote:
You see, liberalism began by placing the individual above God--called secular humanism.

Also called the 1st Amendment.

Thelibrarian wrote:
Then liberalism placed the individual above their society and particularly morality--called cultural Marxism.

Also called the Bill Of Rights.

Thelibrarian wrote:
Then liberalism placed the individual above reality itself--called postmodernism.

No, that's just silly talk.

Thelibrarian wrote:
Roe V Wade fits in very firmly with the latter, and I challenge you to prove otherwise.

*Ahem*. Didn't you previously claim *this*?

Thelibrarian wrote:
But it is interesting that the more liberal the country becomes, the fewer rights Americans have; it is called the police state and judicial tyranny.

Roe v. Wade vastly limited the prospects of a police state and judicial tyranny. If you were genuinely concerned about the powers of government, then you would embrace Roe v. Wade unconditionally.


_________________
Our comforting conviction that the world makes sense rests on a secure foundation: our almost unlimited ability to ignore our ignorance.

- Daniel Kahneman