PDA

View Full Version : Rubio/Paul 2016



sandsjames
02-13-2013, 02:16 PM
Just sayin...

Punisher
02-13-2013, 03:00 PM
Umm, no.

For Paul, do you mean Ron Paul or Rand Paul?

For Rubio; I know that there's this push in the GOP for the Latino vote. However, it's plainly obviously that the GOP knows shit about Latinos if they think that a fuckin' FLORIDA CUBAN is going to be an effective token.

Besides, even if he wasn't a Florida Cuban, we saw how effective Herman Cain would have been at attracting the black vote. Don't think for one second that it will be any different for Latinos.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-13-2013, 03:43 PM
Nope. The two are not the same when calling them "conservative". They are the figure heads for the way the GOP is going to go when it comes to policies. I dont see Rand getting the media/establishment endorsement so there will be plenty of back door deals and rigging of elections to make sure he doesnt win by the establishment just like they did to Ron.

sandsjames
02-13-2013, 05:05 PM
Umm, no.

For Paul, do you mean Ron Paul or Rand Paul?

For Rubio; I know that there's this push in the GOP for the Latino vote. However, it's plainly obviously that the GOP knows shit about Latinos if they think that a fuckin' FLORIDA CUBAN is going to be an effective token.

Besides, even if he wasn't a Florida Cuban, we saw how effective Herman Cain would have been at attracting the black vote. Don't think for one second that it will be any different for Latinos.

I was talking Rand, cuz I don't think Ron would run as anyone's VP. Ron/Rubio would be good, too, but the GOP is pushing Rubio.

Punisher
02-13-2013, 06:05 PM
Bobby Jindal is the GOP's only hope. If he doesn't run in 2016, the GOP is fucked.

Rainmaker
02-13-2013, 06:32 PM
Bobby Jindal is the GOP's only hope. If he doesn't run in 2016, the GOP is fucked.

It's a sinking ship. If in fact the GOP thinks that they are going to convince Hispanics that they are actually white people in exchange for US citizenship, then they are delusional. Most illegals don't give a shit about citizenship. They just want to work here so, they can send their money to their starving families living in squalor in that shithole country they're stuck in.

Robert F. Dorr
03-03-2013, 01:50 AM
Was Rubio born in the United States?

Rizzo77
03-03-2013, 02:21 AM
Rubio/Jindal. Or Jindal/Rubio. 2016 will have to be better than what is going on now.

Rizzo77
03-03-2013, 02:25 AM
Was Rubio born in the United States?

Marco Rubio was born in Miami, Florida. I suspect that he'd provide his birth certificate in the blink of an eye, with no obfuscation.

F4CrewChick
03-03-2013, 03:24 AM
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. No.

Robert F. Dorr
03-27-2013, 12:05 AM
I gotta admit, it may take something as drastic as this to get something done about big government. But the ticket should be reversed.

efmbman
03-27-2013, 12:18 AM
As a life-long moderate-leaning conservative, I have to admit there is no chance of the GOP winning vs any Democrat. Maybe I am jaded by my recent criticism of the GOP, but they are just too stubborn and resistant to compromise for my taste. The caveman mentality toward DADT and DOMA are simply stupid. They are starting to look like the old southerns that are still fighting the Civil War. I'm not saying I am completely going to the dark side (liberal). I found some of those left vs right quizzes and took 3. It seems I am a Libertarian based on my answers... whatever that is.

RobotChicken
03-27-2013, 12:25 AM
:pop2 Couldn't hurt anymore than the last bunch of 8yr term clowns (Clinton,Bush,Obama) I mean a 24 year Clown circus is enough!:juggle

giggawatt
03-27-2013, 08:41 AM
As a life-long moderate-leaning conservative, I have to admit there is no chance of the GOP winning vs any Democrat. Maybe I am jaded by my recent criticism of the GOP, but they are just too stubborn and resistant to compromise for my taste. The caveman mentality toward DADT and DOMA are simply stupid. They are starting to look like the old southerns that are still fighting the Civil War. I'm not saying I am completely going to the dark side (liberal). I found some of those left vs right quizzes and took 3. It seems I am a Libertarian based on my answers... whatever that is.

That simply means, in a nutshell, that you tend to lean right on fiscal issues and tend to left on social issues. Basically, you are all for personal freedom and limited government.

Pueblo
03-27-2013, 10:31 AM
Marco Rubio was born in Miami, Florida. I suspect that he'd provide his birth certificate in the blink of an eye, with no obfuscation.

Yes. Marco Rubio's parents come from an island whose inhabitants are lucy enough to get legal citizenship in America just for showing up. So you see, that's totally relatable to the other 88% of Hispanic Americans his party wants to throw out of the country or force to wait a decade for citizenship.

Pueblo
03-27-2013, 11:17 AM
As a life-long moderate-leaning conservative, I have to admit there is no chance of the GOP winning vs any Democrat. Maybe I am jaded by my recent criticism of the GOP, but they are just too stubborn and resistant to compromise for my taste. The caveman mentality toward DADT and DOMA are simply stupid. They are starting to look like the old southerns that are still fighting the Civil War. I'm not saying I am completely going to the dark side (liberal). I found some of those left vs right quizzes and took 3. It seems I am a Libertarian based on my answers... whatever that is.

When I was a Republican, I liked that it was the party of Lincoln, Roosevelt, Laguardia, and such. Now it's the party of the uninformed, and the rank and file are deeply proud of that fact. Conjure for me, if you can, a single scientific issue in which the Republican party is on the right side? And I reference this because they apply the same approach to virtually every subject. When confronted with objective evidence from an objective source on any issue, count on them to find a way to consider that source to have been compromised. The old Republicans who believed in paying the bills and reasonable government are gone. They've been replaced by libertarians (see reactionaries) who manage to strike a balance between casual anarchist, anti-science, and imaginary economic views and soft theocrats who assign a specific religion to this nation in spite of the basis for our government telling them expressly not to do so. What comes out on the other end is soft racism, conspiracy theories ranging from non-existent currency to the sitting executive's college transcripts, and an effective push to end the few programs in this country that aren't massive accomodations to the super-wealthy (see: Social Security, Medicare). Because to the former group these programs are a danger to our personal freedoms, and the latter would agree in spite of the conflict with the Scriptures they cite as the basis for our government it presents.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-27-2013, 02:16 PM
When I was a Republican, I liked that it was the party of Lincoln, Roosevelt, Laguardia, and such. So you like the GOP of the tyrants and big goverment statists?


Now it's the party of the uninformed, and the rank and file are deeply proud of that fact. Conjure for me, if you can, a single scientific issue in which the Republican party is on the right side? The side of abortion being considered murder since scietifically, life starts earlier than liberals would like to think and just consider any baby in the womb as a parasite or a glob of tissue.

How about the scietific side of fiscal responsibility of spending more than you make will cause you to go broke?

I know, how about global warming...er, cooling....I mean climate change?


And I reference this because they apply the same approach to virtually every subject. When confronted with objective evidence from an objective source on any issue, count on them to find a way to consider that source to have been compromised. You mean someone questioning peer review by the good ole boy system is offensive to you?



The old Republicans who believed in paying the bills and reasonable government are gone. They've been replaced by libertarians (see reactionaries) who manage to strike a balance between casual anarchist, anti-science, and imaginary economic views and soft theocrats who assign a specific religion to this nation in spite of the basis for our government telling them expressly not to do so. Wow, are you completely off base with labeling the libertarian party. Not a single platform of the liebertarians is theology based, unless "live and let live" is what you are talking about. Maybe you dont like their "Worry about the log in your own eye before worrying about the spec in your neighbors" philosophy? As far as economically, they are the ones that want to pay off the debt more than anyone, and I am sure you arent suggesting the dems or progressives have any inclination to pay off the debt. They follow the sceme of "spending our way out of debt" process. Talk about imaginary economic values.


What comes out on the other end is soft racism, conspiracy theories ranging from non-existent currency to the sitting executive's college transcripts, and an effective push to end the few programs in this country that aren't massive accomodations to the super-wealthy (see: Social Security, Medicare). Because to the former group these programs are a danger to our personal freedoms, and the latter would agree in spite of the conflict with the Scriptures they cite as the basis for our government it presents.You really have no clue about American Libertarians at all. Its quite simple, follow the constitution as it is written, not interpreted. If you feel something is wrong and needs to be amended, there is a process for that.

I do think you arguement is also very flawed and you know it, that is why you led off the paragraph with "racism" yet cant give any example. Not to mention blacks were flocking to Ron Paul faster than Romney and also moving away from Obama. But what do they know right? You are the subject matter expert on racism and if others dont see it, they are wrong.

It also wasnt the libertarians that were calling for Obamas transcripts. They didnt need any trash to throw like that because their policies are sound if people want to take personal responsibilties. But as the cycle of democracy continues and we see the ending of this one coming quickly, you will see who is ready to survive when the dollar is worth nothing and the people who have prepared for that day still have purchasing power.

Pueblo
03-27-2013, 03:19 PM
So you like the GOP of the tyrants and big goverment statists?

Yes. The ones who preferred function to dysfunction and sacrificed blind dogmatic ideology in the pursuit of the greater good.


The side of abortion being considered murder since scietifically, life starts earlier than liberals would like to think and just consider any baby in the womb as a parasite or a glob of tissue.

You did find one issue where they are on the correct side of science. But then again rare indeed is the scientist who makes such silly claims as Plan B is tantamount to abortion, birth control is connected to one's promiscuity, or that life begins at conception. Republicans regularly do this in word and deed.


How about the scietific side of fiscal responsibility of spending more than you make will cause you to go broke?

That is not a science, nor is that correct.


I know, how about global warming...er, cooling....I mean climate change?

This is a science. And the agreement on this issue among those most knowledgeable on the subject is nearly universal.


You mean someone questioning peer review by the good ole boy system is offensive to you?

I don't know what this means, nor am I familiar with the forwarded e-mail/facebook meme from which it is derived.


Wow, are you completely off base with labeling the libertarian party. Not a single platform of the liebertarians is theology based, unless "live and let live" is what you are talking about.

Indeed the platform of the Libertarian party (to which I made no reference) makes no reference to theology. I did however reference self-described (lowercase L) libertarians among Republicans, who find convenient bedfellows with theology-based Republicans. And the indignity these libertarians feel over the infringement on personal freedoms is curiously intense when it comes to Amtrak funding and virtually non-existent when it comes to gay marriage, teaching of evolution, mosque construction, etc.


Maybe you dont like their "Worry about the log in your own eye before worrying about the spec in your neighbors" philosophy? As far as economically, they are the ones that want to pay off the debt more than anyone, and I am sure you arent suggesting the dems or progressives have any inclination to pay off the debt. They follow the sceme of "spending our way out of debt" process. Talk about imaginary economic values.

And if they were serious about economics, they'd more closely examine the reasons for the economic collapse and update our financial regulations for the modern age to ensure such a catastrophe does not befall us again. Then, they'd examine the austerity measures taken by Europe and ask why it isn't having the effect Austrian economists insisted it would.


You really have no clue about American Libertarians at all. Its quite simple, follow the constitution as it is written, not interpreted. If you feel something is wrong and needs to be amended, there is a process for that.

If the Constitution is deserving of recognition, as I hope we can agree it is, then why compare the 16th amendment (http://www.militarytimes.com/forum/showthread.php?1595608-While-We-Struggle-to-Keep-Planes-in-the-Air/page9)with theft?


I do think you arguement is also very flawed and you know it, that is why you led off the paragraph with "racism" yet cant give any example. Not to mention blacks were flocking to Ron Paul faster than Romney and also moving away from Obama. But what do they know right? You are the subject matter expert on racism and if others dont see it, they are wrong.

As you can see, I referred to it as "soft racism," and yes it's there and it's been a subtle strategy for decades. When people refer to the POTUS as "arrogant," it's used in place of "uppity." Or when a governor confronts the President with a finger in his face. Aside from the disrespect for the office, it's a brazen move that I don't recall being used towards any white presidents. The entire strategy of mobilizing voters against entitlements is admittedly racist by the political operatives who designed it. From Reagan and Bush Sr. strategist Lee Atwater (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E6DF1E30F935A35753C1A9639C8B 63):

"Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."

I realize this is subjective, and requires the ability to understand nuance. So rather than give you the benefit of the doubt, here are some of the 2012 Republican Primary candidate in their own words:

Rick Santorum (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdfZmcuomcE)
“I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money.”

Ron Paul:
"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society."

Michelle Bachmann (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/republicans/8628717/Michele-Bachmann-signs-controversial-slavery-marriage-pact.html):
"Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President."


It also wasnt the libertarians that were calling for Obamas transcripts.

No, but it was Republicans, who are part of a coalition made up partly by libertarians. And to the best of my recollection, were there any libertarian Republicans decrying that descent into madness?


But as the cycle of democracy continues and we see the ending of this one coming quickly, you will see who is ready to survive when the dollar is worth nothing and the people who have prepared for that day still have purchasing power.

What will be the purchasing power which you have prepared?

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-27-2013, 04:02 PM
Yes. The ones who preferred function to dysfunction and sacrificed blind dogmatic ideology in the pursuit of the greater good.At the cost of peons lives? 600k dead for that "greater good" that was coming eventually? Glad you are willing to be the slave to the tyrants, but I would rather live with self governance than to rely on a master to feed me.


You did find one issue where they are on the correct side of science. But then again rare indeed is the scientist who makes such silly claims as Plan B is tantamount to abortion, birth control is connected to one's promiscuity, or that life begins at conception. Republicans regularly do this in word and deed.Quite frankly, if you do believe in life at conception, then yes, plan B is abortion. As far as birth control is concerned, this is all just fodder to take away the sting of me giving you 3 areas at least of what you asked for.


That is not a science, nor is that correct.Oh sorry, its math. And it is correct, cause spending causes debt, not wealth for the spender.


This is a science. And the agreement on this issue among those most knowledgeable on the subject is nearly universal....that they have no clue of what is going on with the weather or how it is being effected by man, that is why they change the verbage so many times to make sure they are "right". But ignoring data and making other data up, if that is your science, might as well call it a religion I guess.


I don't know what this means, nor am I familiar with the forwarded e-mail/facebook meme from which it is derived. Let me demonstrate.
Crackpot scientist with lucrative grant #1: Hey "peer", review this for me and I will review your study and we can say how great they are so the government will keep funding our studies.
Crackpot scientist with lucrative grant #2: Ok.
And dont try to say that doesnt happen. The government gives grants to those people that get "peer reviewed" and their finding comeout the way the government wanted. Those scientist that disprove the gov studies, they get shut out of the grant process.


Indeed the platform of the Libertarian party (to which I made no reference) makes no reference to theology. I did however reference self-described (lowercase L) libertarians among Republicans, who find convenient bedfellows with theology-based Republicans. And the indignity these libertarians feel over the infringement on personal freedoms is curiously intense when it comes to Amtrak funding and virtually non-existent when it comes to gay marriage, teaching of evolution, mosque construction, etc.You lost me there. On gay marraige, we want the government out of approving marriages licenses. teaching of evolution should be left up to towns and local governments. And what does mosque constrution have to do with anything? They just arent the loudest voice so they dont get heard.


And if they were serious about economics, they'd more closely examine the reasons for the economic collapse and update our financial regulations for the modern age to ensure such a catastrophe does not befall us again. Then, they'd examine the austerity measures taken by Europe and ask why it isn't having the effect Austrian economists insisted it would.Because those countries are already to far in debt and the leeches of their society are too used to getting handouts. The reason for the fall is spending more than we bring in. Having the government hand in the cookie jar of economics trying to make everything "fair" and remove all personal responsibility from the individual.


If the Constitution is deserving of recognition, as I hope we can agree it is, then why compare the 16th amendment (http://www.militarytimes.com/forum/showthread.php?1595608-While-We-Struggle-to-Keep-Planes-in-the-Air/page9)with theft?Because, just like prohabition, the constitution is chaged for the worse some times. The 16th is just taking longer to repeal cause so many people feel its "fair" to steal more from the rich than the poor.


As you can see, I referred to it as "soft racism," and yes it's there and it's been a subtle strategy for decades. When people refer to the POTUS as "arrogant," it's used in place of "uppity." Or when a governor confronts the President with a finger in his face. Ok, so Bush being called a war criminal or idiot etc, that was perfectly ok cause every other white POTUS has been called names before. But the first black POTUS, well, there is no precident for that behavior, so now its wrong and racist? Wow, going to keep those blinders on or try to see the light once in a while?

As for respect for the office BS, maybe you should realize the Govenors were supposed to be the leaders and protectors of their states, and when the POTUS denies them their right to protect their citizens, he deserves the "respect" that he/she gets. The POTUS is not a deity, nor should be treated as one. Its the civilian world and you get the respect you earn and deserve. But guess what, the leaders of many foreign nations dont respect him either, are they racist too?


Aside from the disrespect for the office, it's a brazen move that I don't recall being used towards any white presidents. The entire strategy of mobilizing voters against entitlements is admittedly racist by the political operatives who designed it. From Reagan and Bush Sr. strategist Lee Atwater (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E6DF1E30F935A35753C1A9639C8B 63):

"Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."

I realize this is subjective, and requires the ability to understand nuance. So rather than give you the benefit of the doubt, here are some of the 2012 Republican Primary candidate in their own words:

Rick Santorum (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdfZmcuomcE)
“I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money.” Rick Santorum, hates libertarians. Try again.


Ron Paul:
"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society.". Not a single reference to race in there. He is right, the federal government forces a private business to do what it doesnt want to do is the epitomy of tyranical rule. And after 50 years, there is still no racial harmony.


Michelle Bachmann (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/republicans/8628717/Michele-Bachmann-signs-controversial-slavery-marriage-pact.html):
"Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President."Again, not a libertarian.


No, but it was Republicans, who are part of a coalition made up partly by libertarians. And to the best of my recollection, were there any libertarian Republicans decrying that descent into madness? And the dems are made up partly by the NBPs. So the dems want to kill white babies. How do you slander the sub group who has their own war against the head figure for their views? The libertarians are trying to get rid of the old guard who is just another form of tax and spend dems.


What will be the purchasing power which you have prepared?
Food, gold, precious metals.

Pueblo
03-27-2013, 06:23 PM
At the cost of peons lives? 600k dead for that "greater good" that was coming eventually? Glad you are willing to be the slave to the tyrants, but I would rather live with self governance than to rely on a master to feed me.

Yes. It cost lives to deny Americans the eminent right to own human beings. For lofty talk of tyranny when it comes to paying for social security, paved roads, or foreign aid, you're awfully cavalier about a time in which people were considered property.


Quite frankly, if you do believe in life at conception, then yes, plan B is abortion. As far as birth control is concerned, this is all just fodder to take away the sting of me giving you 3 areas at least of what you asked for.

As stated earlier, few scientists would subscribe to the view that life begins at conception. And certainly among Republicans, the ones who concluded that life begins at conception who arrived at that viewpoint through scientific reasoning are all but non-existent.


...that they have no clue of what is going on with the weather or how it is being effected by man, that is why they change the verbage so many times to make sure they are "right". But ignoring data and making other data up, if that is your science, might as well call it a religion I guess.

Let me demonstrate.
Crackpot scientist with lucrative grant #1: Hey "peer", review this for me and I will review your study and we can say how great they are so the government will keep funding our studies.
Crackpot scientist with lucrative grant #2: Ok.
And dont try to say that doesnt happen. The government gives grants to those people that get "peer reviewed" and their finding comeout the way the government wanted. Those scientist that disprove the gov studies, they get shut out of the grant process.

This is precisely what I referenced earlier in the ability of anti-science Republicans to contort any piece of evidence to suit their interests. I suppose if I were a libertarian who believed in man-made climate change, it would be deeply troubling to accept a world in which the benevolent nature of businesses were the only thing standing between humanity and catastrophic storms and flooding in the world's major cities. So I understand why you must make such half hearted efforts to explain away seemigly overwhelming evidence to insulate you and the dogma which has become your identity.



You lost me there. On gay marraige, we want the government out of approving marriages licenses. teaching of evolution should be left up to towns and local governments. And what does mosque constrution have to do with anything? They just arent the loudest voice so they dont get heard.

The declaration that government shouldn't be in the business of marriage is mostly a cop-out. Why one would expect the government to take such a soft stance on things that demand legal protections (hospital visitation rights, inheritance law, child custody) is difficult to understand, until we see an even weaker stance on a relevant issue on science education. No town has the right to use taxpayer dollars towards a religious education. I would hope self-identifying libertarians consider it an easy call to err on the side on maintaining secular government institutions. Finally, mosque construction (and at least one person who opposed it is a Senator who many consider to be a libertarian) relates back to the first amendment to the Constitution, which you led me to believe is something you consider to be the top priority when it comes to governing.


Because those countries are already to far in debt and the leeches of their society are too used to getting handouts. The reason for the fall is spending more than we bring in. Having the government hand in the cookie jar of economics trying to make everything "fair" and remove all personal responsibility from the individual.

When you say "leeches," I'm curious to know the criteria for that designation? I'm even more curious to know of what nations you speak, specifically? I'm also interested to know how an excess of government caused the recession (if that is indeed your belief)? Finally, and I apologize for asking so many questions, but I would like you to explain, in your view, how government making things "fair" (and the example I'll give is the existing regulations that should have prevented lenders from giving sub-prime mortgages to those whose credit ratings and income made it virtually impossible for them to pay off) is detrimental to the economy?



Because, just like prohabition, the constitution is chaged for the worse some times. The 16th is just taking longer to repeal cause so many people feel its "fair" to steal more from the rich than the poor.

No amount of hyperbole changes the Constitutionality nor the necessity of the act of taxation.


Ok, so Bush being called a war criminal or idiot etc, that was perfectly ok cause every other white POTUS has been called names before. But the first black POTUS, well, there is no precident for that behavior, so now its wrong and racist? Wow, going to keep those blinders on or try to see the light once in a while?

As for respect for the office BS, maybe you should realize the Govenors were supposed to be the leaders and protectors of their states, and when the POTUS denies them their right to protect their citizens, he deserves the "respect" that he/she gets. The POTUS is not a deity, nor should be treated as one. Its the civilian world and you get the respect you earn and deserve. But guess what, the leaders of many foreign nations dont respect him either, are they racist too?

I make no attempt to explain the psyche of those who made such remarks towards the previous POTUS. But there is a general decorum which one ought to follow around a sitting president, and indeed towards another human being. The governor in question broke each of those, and did so in public rather than private. And one can only gather that this governor did so to satiate reactionaries within her constituency.



Not a single reference to race in there. He is right, the federal government forces a private business to do what it doesnt want to do is the epitomy of tyranical rule. And after 50 years, there is still no racial harmony.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree over whether losing the right to discriminate based on skin color constitutes tyranny. That is one right for which neither I nor anyone has a need.


And the dems are made up partly by the NBPs. So the dems want to kill white babies. How do you slander the sub group who has their own war against the head figure for their views? The libertarians are trying to get rid of the old guard who is just another form of tax and spend dems.

If this is the part where I'm expected to step in and defend something I've established I'm against in reference to a party of which I'm not a member, then you're going to be disappointed. But if forced to choose between the "old guard" and the views you're on record advocating, I'm happy to stand shoulder to shoulder with the old guard.



Food, gold, precious metals.

And what form of compensation did you exchange for the food, gold, and precious metals now in your possession?

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-28-2013, 12:14 PM
Yes. It cost lives to deny Americans the eminent right to own human beings. For lofty talk of tyranny when it comes to paying for social security, paved roads, or foreign aid, you're awfully cavalier about a time in which people were considered property.Yes, the nature of the world was for the strong to conquer the week, and usually enslave them. Do I believe it was right? NO. Do I believe it was right to draft unwilling participants, invade a foreign nation, and steel money from the citizens to fund a war that was more about keeping the price of cotton low than it was about freeing the slaves? NO. Slavery was not going to continue in the southern states much longer, but the oppressive taxes and terrifs on cotton and other sothern agriculture was.


As stated earlier, few scientists would subscribe to the view that life begins at conception. And certainly among Republicans, the ones who concluded that life begins at conception who arrived at that viewpoint through scientific reasoning are all but non-existent.Well, those GOP that believe that life starts at conception arent getting it from the bible btw.


This is precisely what I referenced earlier in the ability of anti-science Republicans to contort any piece of evidence to suit their interests. I suppose if I were a libertarian who believed in man-made climate change, it would be deeply troubling to accept a world in which the benevolent nature of businesses were the only thing standing between humanity and catastrophic storms and flooding in the world's major cities. So I understand why you must make such half hearted efforts to explain away seemigly overwhelming evidence to insulate you and the dogma which has become your identity.I am not anti-science, you take something that has been disproven many times and shown that the scientific world has no clue what the world's climate is doing, but still believe they are right. This is worse than those in religion who believe in God without proof, cause at least there, there is no proof to the contrary.

You can fall back on the notion of the catch all safety net of "scientific process", but how about we stop having the government funding these things? And the sad part is, the government is the worse person to be incharge of funding something like this, the make gas companies to use the worst crop to make ethenol, force them to put in the gas supply, then bitch about fuel economy in cars when the ethonol is the reason for a decrease in MPGs.


The declaration that government shouldn't be in the business of marriage is mostly a cop-out. Why one would expect the government to take such a soft stance on things that demand legal protections (hospital visitation rights, inheritance law, child custody) is difficult to understand, until we see an even weaker stance on a relevant issue on science education.Its not a cop-out. What reason should the government be in the practice of allowing anyone to get married? If you are going to bring up hospital visitation rights, that isnt a stance for gay marriage, that is a stance for PATIENTS right to allow whom ever they want to visit them. Inheritance laws? Like in who gets your SS benefits? Again, not an arguement FOR gay marriage but FOR getting rid of the corrupt SS and allowing people to invest that money privately which give them the right to name their own beneficiary. Child custody? When two men or women adopt a child, they are both the legal gaurdians and if one dies, there is no one else that should have a right to the child other than the legal gaurdian. Just like if I get remarried and my future spouse adopts my children and I die, she has the right to the kids over their mother.


No town has the right to use taxpayer dollars towards a religious education. They do if that is what the majority of their voting population deems they want their money spent on.


I would hope self-identifying libertarians consider it an easy call to err on the side on maintaining secular government institutions. They side on what the local culture wants for their town. If that is not what someone in the town wants, they have the right to move down the road or to another state all together to escape. The practice of ferderalism allow for the breeding of new ideas and the good ones will flurish and attract more people while the bad ones will die. This is what we are seeing with so many people leaving liberal stong hold states like CA, NY, and IL for TX.


Finally, mosque construction (and at least one person who opposed it is a Senator who many consider to be a libertarian) relates back to the first amendment to the Constitution, which you led me to believe is something you consider to be the top priority when it comes to governing. Are you talking about the one in NYC? That is pretty long ago and I am not totally caught up on what has happened since. As for who you think is a libertarian and opposed it, was he trying to get the federal government to ban the building or encouraging the local government to reconsider the building permit?



When you say "leeches," I'm curious to know the criteria for that designation? I'm even more curious to know of what nations you speak, specifically? I'm also interested to know how an excess of government caused the recession (if that is indeed your belief)? Finally, and I apologize for asking so many questions, but I would like you to explain, in your view, how government making things "fair" (and the example I'll give is the existing regulations that should have prevented lenders from giving sub-prime mortgages to those whose credit ratings and income made it virtually impossible for them to pay off) is detrimental to the economy?Those people that want to retire and live off government pensions at the age of 55. Greece, Spain, etc. The country that is flurishing in the EU is Germany because of its austarity.

How does government cause the recession? Lets look at this one. This one where they "encouraged" banks to give out unsafe loans. If they banks didn't, then they were accused of racism. The banks knew better, thats why it wasnt immediately after the softening of regulations that they started giving out those loans. Freddy and Fanny threatened them with withholding banking for their loans if they didnt start giving out more to lower income (minorities) families. You put this in your example but yet dont see how more government over reach causes a recession.

I will give you another example. The federally funded backing of college loans. Because of this, college tuition is inflating faster than the housing market and the medical insurance premiums. It is the next bubble, and these loans are going to need a bailout as well.


No amount of hyperbole changes the Constitutionality nor the necessity of the act of taxation. Hypbole? If you want to go off constitutionality for this, why isnt the 14th being talked about in relation to the 16th? Everyone is equal right? But the rich pay more in taxes percentage wise, so this is not equal. These citizens are being taxed at a higher rate because of their status in America. Wouldnt you be screaming for the 14th ammendment if blacks were forced to work more physically demanding jobs? Jamie Fox sure says they are better suited for it. So what if an ammendment came out to say black must work in construction and agriculture because they can handle it? That is the excuse for why the rich pay more in taxes, because they can handle it.


I make no attempt to explain the psyche of those who made such remarks towards the previous POTUS. But there is a general decorum which one ought to follow around a sitting president, and indeed towards another human being. The governor in question broke each of those, and did so in public rather than private. And one can only gather that this governor did so to satiate reactionaries within her constituency.BS. You get the respect you earn, not the title you wear. He is not her boss and he has no say over how she chooses to protect her citizens. But he chose to act like a dictator and deny her the constitutional right to do what is best for her state (10th) and she called him out.


I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree over whether losing the right to discriminate based on skin color constitutes tyranny. That is one right for which neither I nor anyone has a need.You cant legislate morality right? You dont want the GOP to start denying porn on the internet or women from killing babies through abortion, but its ok to legisilate morality when it comes to race? Honestly, now, you have two diners sitting next to each other in NYC. One says "no colors", the other allows everyone to eat there. Which one goes out of business first in the free market?


If this is the part where I'm expected to step in and defend something I've established I'm against in reference to a party of which I'm not a member, then you're going to be disappointed. But if forced to choose between the "old guard" and the views you're on record advocating, I'm happy to stand shoulder to shoulder with the old guard.You are very vague with your responses. Please clear up who the "old gaurd" is and which party you are talking about.


And what form of compensation did you exchange for the food, gold, and precious metals now in your possession?
What ever they will get me. Its the point of alternate currency for when the dollar colapses. Diversity and the ability to give someone what they want in order to get what you want. These things that I mentioned have always had value placed upon them. When the dollar is worth less than the "paper" its printed on for more than wiping your ass with it, are you going to be able to survive?

Banned
03-28-2013, 03:34 PM
At the cost of peons lives? 600k dead for that "greater good" that was coming eventually? Glad you are willing to be the slave to the tyrants, but I would rather live with self governance than to rely on a master to feed me.

I find this logic curious - so instead of fighting to end evil immediately, we should have instead done nothing and hoped the Slave holders got tired of owning slaves on their own? That we should have tolerated a regime of torture, abuse, and rape - just because it would be wrong to fight to end it?

There is NO evidence that slavery would have "died a natural death". None at all.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-28-2013, 04:05 PM
I find this logic curious - so instead of fighting to end evil immediately, we should have instead done nothing and hoped the Slave holders got tired of owning slaves on their own? That we should have tolerated a regime of torture, abuse, and rape - just because it would be wrong to fight to end it?

There is NO evidence that slavery would have "died a natural death". None at all.

It did in the rest of the "civilized" world. But hey, if you are advocating for invading those countries that practice such behaviors, are you supporting an all out attack on China or N Korea in todays age? Or how about we attack Iran and Egypt and Syria? If its not right to go after these countries now for their inhumain treatment of the people by todays standards, why was it ok to do such a thing 130 years ago when everyone else was just giving up the act of slavery?

Banned
03-28-2013, 04:26 PM
It did in the rest of the "civilized" world.

This is true... but we must also consider that slavery was not nearly as entrenched in any of those other countries as it was in the United States. We must also consider that all peacable solutions (such as slaves being freed, and the owners reimbursed) were voted down by the Southern states.

We can try to dress it up all day... but the fact remains - the South wanted war. You make the valid point that a lot of people died to end slavery... but we cannot ignore the fact that the Southern whites were willing to fight and die to PROTECT slavery.


But hey, if you are advocating for invading those countries that practice such behaviors, are you supporting an all out attack on China or N Korea in todays age? Or how about we attack Iran and Egypt and Syria? If its not right to go after these countries now for their inhumain treatment of the people by todays standards, why was it ok to do such a thing 130 years ago when everyone else was just giving up the act of slavery?

Well that's the key difference - which I think we both already agree upon. There is a huge distinction between fighting to end evil in our own country... and traveling to another country and instituting our own particular brand of morality on them. The only effective way to achieve progress is for a people to do it themselves... we can't fix the entire world.

Furthermore, history has shown that a "foreign invader" like the United States attempting to "fix" a country generally only makes it worse - because we ARE a foreign invader that doesn't understand the local culture, and we only piss people off. Its much better to keep any support we give more subtle. If individual Americans feel strongly about the freedom and human rights of people in another land... they are more than welcome to buy a plane ticket and go join in the fight themselves. (Like for example, the international brigades in the Spanish Civil War)

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-28-2013, 04:53 PM
This is true... but we must also consider that slavery was not nearly as entrenched in any of those other countries as it was in the United States. We must also consider that all peacable solutions (such as slaves being freed, and the owners reimbursed) were voted down by the Southern states.What do you call surfs under a king anything but slavery?


We can try to dress it up all day... but the fact remains - the South wanted war. You make the valid point that a lot of people died to end slavery... but we cannot ignore the fact that the Southern whites were willing to fight and die to PROTECT slavery.They didnt want war, that is why they seceded. The north was the invading army. The south was willing to fight and die to protect their soveignty. The majority of the south wasnt white slave owning men, the was a few, so why would non slave owners stand up to protect them when the northern whites werent wanting to go fight to free the slaves? It was about the states rights to chose.




Well that's the key difference - which I think we both already agree upon. There is a huge distinction between fighting to end evil in our own country... and traveling to another country and instituting our own particular brand of morality on them. The only effective way to achieve progress is for a people to do it themselves... we can't fix the entire world.It wasnt our "own" country because the south left. But if you are saying they didnt have the right to leave, then you are also saying it wasnt right for the colonies to leave the rule of the british crown.


Furthermore, history has shown that a "foreign invader" like the United States attempting to "fix" a country generally only makes it worse - because we ARE a foreign invader that doesn't understand the local culture, and we only piss people off. Its much better to keep any support we give more subtle. If individual Americans feel strongly about the freedom and human rights of people in another land... they are more than welcome to buy a plane ticket and go join in the fight themselves. (Like for example, the international brigades in the Spanish Civil War)You are right, and its why there was sooooo much hatred in the south towards blacks and Yankees after the war. The culture was different than the north, but the elitist felt they knew better.

Banned
03-28-2013, 06:40 PM
What do you call surfs under a king anything but slavery?

Pleeeease. Serfs aren't beaten, families broken up, and the females raped every day by the white plantation owner. There's no comparison whatsoever.


They didnt want war, that is why they seceded. The north was the invading army. The south was willing to fight and die to protect their soveignty. The majority of the south wasnt white slave owning men, the was a few, so why would non slave owners stand up to protect them when the northern whites werent wanting to go fight to free the slaves? It was about the states rights to chose.

Remind me again who fired the first shot.


It wasnt our "own" country because the south left. But if you are saying they didnt have the right to leave, then you are also saying it wasnt right for the colonies to leave the rule of the british crown.

Depends how far into the weeds you want to get. The issue with old King George is that we had no representation in Parliament. If he was a smart man... he would have given us seats in Parliament... then turned around and taxed the living shit out of us, and we couldn't have done nothing about it (American colonists actually paid far lower taxes than British residents at the time).

As for the South... basically they willfully participated in this whole project... then cried like little girls when their man didn't win the election and wanted to secede.


You are right, and its why there was sooooo much hatred in the south towards blacks and Yankees after the war. The culture was different than the north, but the elitist felt they knew better.

Yup... its pathetic, isn't it? Why couldn't they be good losers and just get along with the rest of us? No wonder the entire rest of the country has nothing but derision for the white racist southerners!

Pueblo
03-28-2013, 06:56 PM
Yes, the nature of the world was for the strong to conquer the week, and usually enslave them. Do I believe it was right? NO. Do I believe it was right to draft unwilling participants, invade a foreign nation, and steel money from the citizens to fund a war that was more about keeping the price of cotton low than it was about freeing the slaves? NO. Slavery was not going to continue in the southern states much longer, but the oppressive taxes and terrifs on cotton and other sothern agriculture was.

The earlier examples of slavery you refer to are vastly different from the commoditization of blameless human beings. The slavery of antiquity and the Middle Ages was the by-product of war, debt, criminal behavior, etc. It was not a legacy that followed the individual's offspring, nor were there laws outlawing their literacy, nor did it involve mass kidnappings of innocents, nor was it brought on by, in the words of Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens "the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition," and other groundless claims of genetic superiority.

I won't begin to speculate on what foreign entity was invaded during the Civil War, but I suspect it will lead down a rabbit hole of very marginal ideas.


Well, those GOP that believe that life starts at conception arent getting it from the bible btw.

It isn't important to me where you or I speculate they get such an idea from. What is relevant to the discussion is that they didn't arrive at that conclusion based on any sort of scientific data, leading back to my earlier claim that they reliably find themselves on the incorrect side of science and rational thought.


I am not anti-science, you take something that has been disproven many times and shown that the scientific world has no clue what the world's climate is doing, but still believe they are right. This is worse than those in religion who believe in God without proof, cause at least there, there is no proof to the contrary.

You can fall back on the notion of the catch all safety net of "scientific process", but how about we stop having the government funding these things? And the sad part is, the government is the worse person to be incharge of funding something like this, the make gas companies to use the worst crop to make ethenol, force them to put in the gas supply, then bitch about fuel economy in cars when the ethonol is the reason for a decrease in MPGs.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


Its not a cop-out. What reason should the government be in the practice of allowing anyone to get married? If you are going to bring up hospital visitation rights, that isnt a stance for gay marriage, that is a stance for PATIENTS right to allow whom ever they want to visit them. Inheritance laws? Like in who gets your SS benefits? Again, not an arguement FOR gay marriage but FOR getting rid of the corrupt SS and allowing people to invest that money privately which give them the right to name their own beneficiary. Child custody? When two men or women adopt a child, they are both the legal gaurdians and if one dies, there is no one else that should have a right to the child other than the legal gaurdian. Just like if I get remarried and my future spouse adopts my children and I die, she has the right to the kids over their mother.

Seeing as how those views on Social Security are shared by an absolute minority of Americans, I must insist we debate this in the world that exists rather than the one you would like to exist. That being said, without any of the government protections that go with hospital visitations, for instance, there's nothing compelling an administrator to allow a same sex partner to visit their loved one at a hospital. And I presume the libertarian answer is to go to a hospital that does allow same-sex visitation, or leave the area altogether. That's neither economic, nor just, nor is there a compelling reason to believe the free market would even solve the problem. As for child custody, Over half of all states still prevent a same sex spouse from adopting the biological child of their partner. So without legal recognition of the union, there is no protection of that individual's custody rights.


They side on what the local culture wants for their town. If that is not what someone in the town wants, they have the right to move down the road or to another state all together to escape. The practice of ferderalism allow for the breeding of new ideas and the good ones will flurish and attract more people while the bad ones will die. This is what we are seeing with so many people leaving liberal stong hold states like CA, NY, and IL for TX.

If I may table the constitutional discussion for a moment, my original claim was that Republicans are on the wrong side of science when it comes to teaching evolution. Do you concede this point and simply want to discuss the constitutionality of teaching a religion in schools, or do you contest my original claim?


Are you talking about the one in NYC? That is pretty long ago and I am not totally caught up on what has happened since. As for who you think is a libertarian and opposed it, was he trying to get the federal government to ban the building or encouraging the local government to reconsider the building permit?

Whether the elected official was or wasn't, it goes back to my original point that libertarians (or at lest self-proclaimed libertarians holding elected office) have a strong tendency to do precisely what any other conservative would do on fiscal issues, and soft-pedal (or in this case completely betray) the things libertarians claim to stand for on social issues.


Those people that want to retire and live off government pensions at the age of 55. Greece, Spain, etc. The country that is flurishing in the EU is Germany because of its austarity.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/04/28/opinion/042812krugman1/042812krugman1-blog480.jpg
There appears to be a direct correlation between austerity implementation and an economy's failed recovery. In Germany, in fact, austerity has hardly been implemented and has experienced more growth. Correlation is not necessarily causation, but I'm interested to hear the competing narrative.


How does government cause the recession? Lets look at this one. This one where they "encouraged" banks to give out unsafe loans. If they banks didn't, then they were accused of racism. The banks knew better, thats why it wasnt immediately after the softening of regulations that they started giving out those loans. Freddy and Fanny threatened them with withholding banking for their loans if they didnt start giving out more to lower income (minorities) families. You put this in your example but yet dont see how more government over reach causes a recession.

This is sadly indicative of a low-information voter, and how poorly society has examined the reasons for the near-implosion of our economy. If you're referring to the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, fewer than 6% of mortgages (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPO-FCIC.pdf) had any connection to it whatsoever. The other 94% were banks knowingly lending to the poor because they stood to gain monetarily from foreclosure.

And while Fannie and Freddie certainly played a role in the crisis, the major investment banks encouraged lenders to make risky loans because they had a financial interest in doing so, with complicated algorithms called "Credit Default Swaps" that deregulation and inaction prevented regulators from policing. I don't often advocate using Wikipedia as a source, but in this case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap) they do well at explaining a complex issue.

In short, these assets mean banks profit when mortgages go into foreclosure. Banks being in the business of turning a profit, decided to push for more and more loans that would fail based on the economic incentives for it that lax regulations allowed. Of course, if I were a libertarian who understood the inherent toxicity of this practice, I couldn't imagine being a libertarian for much longer. So I will make allowance for the equivocation that is no doubt forthcoming.


Hypbole? If you want to go off constitutionality for this, why isnt the 14th being talked about in relation to the 16th? Everyone is equal right? But the rich pay more in taxes percentage wise, so this is not equal. These citizens are being taxed at a higher rate because of their status in America. Wouldnt you be screaming for the 14th ammendment if blacks were forced to work more physically demanding jobs? Jamie Fox sure says they are better suited for it. So what if an ammendment came out to say black must work in construction and agriculture because they can handle it? That is the excuse for why the rich pay more in taxes, because they can handle it.

I must say that for a statement that began with the word "Hyperbole," you certainly delivered it once again in spades. The increased income brings with it increased demand for the government that protects and accommodates that wealth. Additionally, by reducing the tax burden on the poor and middle class, consumption increases, which once again benefits the upper class. If you require an explanation on how one's income level does not warrant the same legal definition as one's ethnic background, I'm happy to provide one. As for the comments on minorities throughout your response and the unsolicited comment on Jamie Foxx and slavery, I'll let them speak for themselves within their own context.


BS. You get the respect you earn, not the title you wear. He is not her boss and he has no say over how she chooses to protect her citizens. But he chose to act like a dictator and deny her the constitutional right to do what is best for her state (10th) and she called him out.

Whether or not he is her boss has little bearing on whether her behavior was excusable. The planet of which we exist is teeming with literally billions of people who are not the "boss" of you or I. Nevertheless, the incalculable majority of us go through life every day maintaining respectful attitudes towards those to whom we are not beholden. And even among those of us who are not respectful, it generally does not devolve in such obvious terms. And even when it devolves in such obvious terms, it isn't done in public within the known view of photographers. This individual's actions at best were exceptionally rude, and at worst a cynical ploy to shore up her appeal to racists in her own voting coalition. And considering the spirit of the law in question was meant for law enforcement to target people of specific skin colors, it adds another fascinating dimension that only reinforces the odds that race were an important motivating factor for the governor in question.


You cant legislate morality right? You dont want the GOP to start denying porn on the internet or women from killing babies through abortion, but its ok to legisilate morality when it comes to race? Honestly, now, you have two diners sitting next to each other in NYC. One says "no colors", the other allows everyone to eat there. Which one goes out of business first in the free market?

If the goal of this exercise is to get me to say that I prefer the so-called tyranny of legal protections for minorities to legally-protected racism, then you're welcome to consider this a victory for you.


You are very vague with your responses. Please clear up who the "old gaurd" is and which party you are talking about.

People who put national accomplishment before ideological purity and for whom compromise is not a mark of shame. Those people used to be both Republicans and Democrats. Today, with only the rarest exception, that description only applies to Democrats.


What ever they will get me. Its the point of alternate currency for when the dollar colapses. Diversity and the ability to give someone what they want in order to get what you want. These things that I mentioned have always had value placed upon them. When the dollar is worth less than the "paper" its printed on for more than wiping your ass with it, are you going to be able to survive?

I think you misunderstood the question. What did you pay the proprietor for the gold, food, and precious metals?

thread_cop
03-29-2013, 12:13 PM
I'm sure the serfs didn't feel like they were in a bad situation. Slavery is bad, unless the slave is white.

sandsjames
03-29-2013, 12:20 PM
I'm sure the serfs didn't feel like they were in a bad situation. Slavery is bad, unless the slave is white.

Thought you were on vacation and wouldn't be posting for awhile? Forget to properly log out of your account? Dumbass!!

sandsjames
03-29-2013, 12:21 PM
I think that posts should be even longer so even fewer people will read them.

Pueblo
03-29-2013, 12:53 PM
I think that posts should be even longer so even fewer people will read them.

Unless you think the economic, social, and historic issues discussed in this thread are simple, it is unwise to expect simple answers. If you prefer not to read, I would like to suggest an alternative website (http://www.twitter.com) or perhaps another option (http://icanhas.cheezburger.com/).

sandsjames
03-29-2013, 01:04 PM
Unless you think the economic, social, and historic issues discussed in this thread are simple, it is unwise to expect simple answers. If you prefer not to read, I would like to suggest an alternative website (http://www.twitter.com) or perhaps another option (http://icanhas.cheezburger.com/).

I have no problem reading. I just find it boring when people post excessively just to try and win an "intellect" measuring contest. But thanks for your suggestion. I will treat it with the respect I feel it deserves.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-29-2013, 04:44 PM
Pleeeease. Serfs aren't beaten, families broken up, and the females raped every day by the white plantation owner. There's no comparison whatsoever.Fresh wives were raped, men called to battle (draft) with threat of death. No property. Do you really think it was happy go lucky on the farm? There is a reason for the French revolution other than starvation.

Do you really think it was only whites that raped slaves? No black males, free or slaves themselves, ever raped the women?


Remind me again who fired the first shot.Why do you think its ok for people to just pop a squat on other peoples land and when the owners of the land get angry and try to evict them, its not ok to retaliate. But if first "shot" is a clemency for invading a foreign land, guess the native Americans deserved what they got because they killed the Europeans first. Palestien killed Isrealis first.


Depends how far into the weeds you want to get. The issue with old King George is that we had no representation in Parliament. If he was a smart man... he would have given us seats in Parliament... then turned around and taxed the living shit out of us, and we couldn't have done nothing about it (American colonists actually paid far lower taxes than British residents at the time).So its all about how you want to spin. There is no right for anyone to leave another country and form their own as long as they are given a sense of representation?


As for the South... basically they willfully participated in this whole project... then cried like little girls when their man didn't win the election and wanted to secede.Ok? It was a voluntary union of serval countries like the EU. Now it is mandatory that you stay forever, even if 49 states say its ok to take all the money from one state.


Yup... its pathetic, isn't it? Why couldn't they be good losers and just get along with the rest of us? No wonder the entire rest of the country has nothing but derision for the white racist southerners!
Because Licoln cause the death of 600k people. Then had his troops rape and pillage through the south to the ocean to add insult to injury. Then the north made slaves of the south and plunged them into a long recession. Why couldnt Lincoln have jsut let them go instead of being the 5 y/o spoiled brat that had to have it his way?

Everyone has derision for ANY racist, but only the white southerners are focused on. The white democratic racist get a free pass. The black democrats get a pass. Ah hell, the entire democratic party gets a pass for the blantant racism.

Pueblo
04-01-2013, 07:56 AM
Do you really think it was only whites that raped slaves? No black males, free or slaves themselves, ever raped the women?

Could you help me understand how this is a relevant or helpful contribution to the overall discussion of slavery taking place?

Pullinteeth
04-01-2013, 02:51 PM
Pleeeease. Serfs aren't beaten, families broken up, and the females raped every day by the white plantation owner. There's no comparison whatsoever.

Of course they AREN'T but they WERE.... Droit du seigneur aka jus primae noctis or droit de cuissage gave Lords the right to rape the daughters of his serfs. droit de prélassement gave Lords the right to disembowl their serfs to warm their feet in their entrails....

Yep sounds like quite the carefree life....

Banned
04-01-2013, 03:28 PM
Fresh wives were raped, men called to battle (draft) with threat of death. No property. Do you really think it was happy go lucky on the farm? There is a reason for the French revolution other than starvation.

Okay my apologies... I thought you were using the term "serf" metaphorically for the Irish and other poor workers in America at the time... I didn't think you literally meant serfs. Yes, historically serfs have had it almost as bad as American slaves... and this is relevant to the argument... how?


Do you really think it was only whites that raped slaves? No black males, free or slaves themselves, ever raped the women?

No, I'm sure that did happen once in a while. And as the women weren't considered human - but mere property - there was absolutely no way they could defend themselves or have the perpetrators punished.

This helps your argument... how? Or was this some attempt to prove that blacks are beastly animals?


Why do you think its ok for people to just pop a squat on other peoples land and when the owners of the land get angry and try to evict them, its not ok to retaliate. But if first "shot" is a clemency for invading a foreign land, guess the native Americans deserved what they got because they killed the Europeans first. Palestien killed Isrealis first.

Actually every Federal fort is on Federal land - being in the military you know this just as well as I do. Just because some ignorant hick state decides they're not part of the Union anymore doesn't suddenly make the Federal Government's ownership of that land void.


So its all about how you want to spin. There is no right for anyone to leave another country and form their own as long as they are given a sense of representation?

Exactly. Every Confederate state agreed to be part of the union in the first place, and was fairly represented in our government. Just because you lose an election and everything doesn't go the way you wanted it to doesn't mean you get to secede.


Ok? It was a voluntary union of serval countries like the EU. Now it is mandatory that you stay forever, even if 49 states say its ok to take all the money from one state.

WTF are you talking about? What southern state had all their money taken away?


Because Licoln cause the death of 600k people. Then had his troops rape and pillage through the south to the ocean to add insult to injury. Then the north made slaves of the south and plunged them into a long recession. Why couldnt Lincoln have jsut let them go instead of being the 5 y/o spoiled brat that had to have it his way?


Why couldn't he have just let them go... question of the day. I find it interesting that you're more interested in what was convenient for the white man, than what was convenient for the slaves!


Everyone has derision for ANY racist, but only the white southerners are focused on. The white democratic racist get a free pass. The black democrats get a pass. Ah hell, the entire democratic party gets a pass for the blantant racism.[/QUOTE]

Black democratic politicians don't put pillowcases on their heads and hang people. Just sayin'.

Banned
04-01-2013, 03:29 PM
I have no problem reading. I just find it boring when people post excessively just to try and win an "intellect" measuring contest. But thanks for your suggestion. I will treat it with the respect I feel it deserves.

Somehow this attitude doesn't surprise me a bit.

JD2780
04-01-2013, 03:39 PM
Ummm yea the north raped and pillaged through the south. Maybe in very isolated cases. One of Lincoln's goals was to bring the south back with respect as they were still our countrymen.

JD2780
04-01-2013, 03:41 PM
Okay my apologies... I thought you were using the term "serf" metaphorically for the Irish and other poor workers in America at the time... I didn't think you literally meant serfs. Yes, historically serfs have had it almost as bad as American slaves... and this is relevant to the argument... how?



No, I'm sure that did happen once in a while. And as the women weren't considered human - but mere property - there was absolutely no way they could defend themselves or have the perpetrators punished.

This helps your argument... how? Or was this some attempt to prove that blacks are beastly animals?



Actually every Federal fort is on Federal land - being in the military you know this just as well as I do. Just because some ignorant hick state decides they're not part of the Union anymore doesn't suddenly make the Federal Government's ownership of that land void.



Exactly. Every Confederate state agreed to be part of the union in the first place, and was fairly represented in our government. Just because you lose an election and everything doesn't go the way you wanted it to doesn't mean you get to secede.



WTF are you talking about? What southern state had all their money taken away?



Why couldn't he have just let them go... question of the day. I find it interesting that you're more interested in what was convenient for the white man, than what was convenient for the slaves!



Black democratic politicians don't put pillowcases on their heads and hang people. Just sayin'.[/QUOTE]

No but the NBP does threaten folks.

Pullinteeth
04-01-2013, 03:45 PM
Black democratic politicians don't put pillowcases on their heads and hang people. Just sayin'.

Neither do any other politicians-except of course those whack jobs that do... Of course there are those white democrats that used to wear a sheet on their head... Even they don't do that anymore-who says a democrat can't learn anything?

Banned
04-01-2013, 03:45 PM
No but the NBP does threaten folks.

Fortunately, the NBP is a fringe element - and (as far as we know) nonviolent.


Ummm yea the north raped and pillaged through the south. Maybe in very isolated cases. One of Lincoln's goals was to bring the south back with respect as they were still our countrymen.

Hey look we agree - absolutely. In Sherman's March to the sea he would literally hang anyone in the army who was caught stealing or mistreating the women.

I think WJ5 has watched too much "Gone with the Wind".

JD2780
04-01-2013, 03:52 PM
Fortunately, the NBP is a fringe element - and (as far as we know) nonviolent.



Hey look we agree - absolutely. In Sherman's March to the sea he would literally hang anyone in the army who was caught stealing or mistreating the women.

I think WJ5 has watched too much "Gone with the Wind".

Much of. The backlash of northern troops acting in that way is documented. It was not tolerated by union officers.

The threat of violence can be as damaging to some folks as actual violence. Just damages different areas.

imported_WILDJOKER5
04-08-2013, 11:53 AM
Could you help me understand how this is a relevant or helpful contribution to the overall discussion of slavery taking place?

He wanted to focus on white plantation owners being the only rapers of slaves. I was just pointing out that not only did whites do it, but so did everyone else. Cant just focus on one group and ignore what happened with everyone else. And rapes wasnt a fresh idea that just happened to pop up in the 1700's America. Joe seems to think that the nobility didnt see themselves as vastly superior to the surfs and thinks rapes just didnt happen back in "ye ole times". What he fails to address is that the surfs had no one to complain to so there wasnt any reports about rapes by nobles.

imported_WILDJOKER5
04-08-2013, 12:27 PM
Okay my apologies... I thought you were using the term "serf" metaphorically for the Irish and other poor workers in America at the time... I didn't think you literally meant serfs. Yes, historically serfs have had it almost as bad as American slaves... and this is relevant to the argument... how?

No, I'm sure that did happen once in a while. And as the women weren't considered human - but mere property - there was absolutely no way they could defend themselves or have the perpetrators punished.

This helps your argument... how? Or was this some attempt to prove that blacks are beastly animals?We were making comparisons to slavery and serfdom and saying how it wasnt as bad as in other countries around the world. I was making a point how it was around for much longer than you thought and showed you the not just whites were responsible for rapes of their subjects.


Actually every Federal fort is on Federal land - being in the military you know this just as well as I do. Just because some ignorant hick state decides they're not part of the Union anymore doesn't suddenly make the Federal Government's ownership of that land void.Federal land huh? Is that why they pay rent of that land to the states they occupy? I see you dont really want to debate but to slander groups of people you dont like so even if you were to admit that a free state had the right to leave the union, the land that the forts occupied was no longer the property of the US government but reverts back to the state is pointless to continue to make.


Exactly. Every Confederate state agreed to be part of the union in the first place, and was fairly represented in our government. Just because you lose an election and everything doesn't go the way you wanted it to doesn't mean you get to secede.Why not? Volunteer to be part of an organization also means they can leave when ever they wanted. But I forget that I am talking to someone that believes in some states people that work must contribute to unions if they belong to that union or not without the choice in the matter.

Why couldnt the Federal government let these states go and say they would never get a chance to come back if the states found out it wasnt as easy to make it on their own that they would have hoped for?


WTF are you talking about? What southern state had all their money taken away?No southern state had their money taken away. I was making a point, that should have been clear when I referenced "49" states, that Lincoln didnt view this country as a union of volunteered soveriegn nations, but as municipalities to which he was the dictator over and lord supreem. I thought you were against "might makes right" philosophy and just because the majority of those in cognress wanted to tax the hell out of the southern states that is didnt give them the right to leave.


Why couldn't he have just let them go... question of the day. I find it interesting that you're more interested in what was convenient for the white man, than what was convenient for the slaves!You ignored the question. And you continually ignore the FACT that it was more than just about slaves. You keep demonizing whites when there was plenty of black slave owners and white slaves as well.


Black democratic politicians don't put pillowcases on their heads and hang people. Just sayin'.
Right, it was the white democratic politicians that did that.

imported_WILDJOKER5
04-08-2013, 12:30 PM
Ummm yea the north raped and pillaged through the south. Maybe in very isolated cases. One of Lincoln's goals was to bring the south back with respect as they were still our countrymen.

Isolated? The march to the ocean was completely raping and pillaging. Destroying farm land, railroads, and anything else the union encountered that had value to the south. Isolated, please stop putting the north on such a high pedastal and look at what they actually did not only to the south, but to native Americans and Chinese and Irish of the north. They are no where near the sainthood the history books make them out to be.