You would have that knowledge if youI don't have the answers, and I damn sure don't have enough knowledge to speak for everyone or make sweeping generalities,
R E A D
A
F U C K I N G
B O O K
R E A D
A
F U C K I N G
B O O K
Every meaningful social change this country has ever had has come from the federal government. Abolishment of slavery, women's suffrage, workers rights and safety standards, civil rights. The next in line will be gay rights.Jay wrote:
But they don't, because the people that gravitate towards our national government have largely been scum.
The south would still have house slaves had it ''been left to the states''.
Last edited by Macbeth (2012-08-10 21:54:09)
Kid, I've read probably ten times the number of books you have. I'm just not arrogant enough to say that I know definitively why certain demographics behave the way they do. I leave that to political science professors trying to sell books and milk the government for grant money.Macbeth wrote:
You would have that knowledge if youI don't have the answers, and I damn sure don't have enough knowledge to speak for everyone or make sweeping generalities,
R E A D
A
F U C K I N G
B O O K
Outside of the deep south, black people were coming very close to integration until the mid 1960s. Explain why a sudden u-turn was made from being willing to work their way up the ladder to spitting on menial jobs and instead turning to get-rich-quick schemes like dealing drugs or becoming a pro athlete or rapper or whatever. Again, I'm not speaking for an entire race here, because there are many successful black people throughout this country, but what I do know is that there are thousands of un or underemployed black people in my hometown and yet a bunch of people from Honduras and Peru found work and thrive. Blame the lack of societal structure all you want, you've obviously never been exposed to black people in your life because you'd find that they are some of the most religious people in this country. They were denied churches? They started their own.
I had no advantages over the black kids in my neighborhood. None. We were poor together. The only real difference is that I had a work ethic instilled in me from when I was a small child while my neighbors turned to selling crack when they turned 15. I used to get laughed at because I worked at Taco Bell to make money. Oh well.
Anyway, theorize all you want, but any ideas you may have should start with The Great Society.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Oh right, nothing good has ever come from anywhere but the federal government. And business owners didn't build their businesses either. The abolition of slavery began with the states, namely with Pennsylvania in 1775. That movement spread to the rest of the northern states prior to the Civil War. Women had the right to vote in twelve states before it passed nationally. Civil rights, check, gay rights, check. The feds are generally decades behind and all they've done is make universal what individual states have done, kind of like romneycare becoming forced on the rest of us as obamacare. But sure, the feds are fantastic and timely.Macbeth wrote:
Every meaningful social change this country has ever had has come from the federal government. Abolishment of slavery, women's suffrage, workers rights and safety standards, civil rights. The next in line will be gay rights.Jay wrote:
But they don't, because the people that gravitate towards our national government have largely been scum.
The south would still have house slaves had it ''been left to the states''.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
No they weren't. Blacks were still denied entry into social clubs, political office, neighborhoods, churches, schools and so on. You are stupid to think blacks were close to be accepted ad American in the 60's.Outside of the deep south, black people were coming very close to integration until the mid 1960s.
That has to be a joke. Especially coming from the guy who said last week he didn't want to live around black people.structure all you want, you've obviously never been exposed to black people in your life
Yes! black people are poor because they are lazy and stupid. You had a better chance at getting that job than all the black people in your neighborhood because you are white. It has been proven that a white felon has a better chance at getting a job in America than a college educated black person. Black people are more likely to get stopped and arrested though. ReadI had no advantages over the black kids in my neighborhood. None. We were poor together. The only real difference is that I had a work ethic instilled in me from when I was a small child while my neighbors turned to selling crack when they turned 15. I used to get laughed at because I worked at Taco Bell to make money. Oh well.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_privilege
A few simple yes or no questions: do you think Alabama would outlawed slavery if they weren't forced to by the Fed government?Jay wrote:
Oh right, nothing good has ever come from anywhere but the federal government. And business owners didn't build their businesses either. The abolition of slavery began with the states, namely with Pennsylvania in 1775. That movement spread to the rest of the northern states prior to the Civil War. Women had the right to vote in twelve states before it passed nationally. Civil rights, check, gay rights, check. The feds are generally decades behind and all they've done is make universal what individual states have done, kind of like romneycare becoming forced on the rest of us as obamacare. But sure, the feds are fantastic and timely.Macbeth wrote:
Every meaningful social change this country has ever had has come from the federal government. Abolishment of slavery, women's suffrage, workers rights and safety standards, civil rights. The next in line will be gay rights.Jay wrote:
But they don't, because the people that gravitate towards our national government have largely been scum.
The south would still have house slaves had it ''been left to the states''.
Do you think Kentucky would allow women to vote had they not be forced to.
Do you think Alabama would have racially integrated had they not been forced?
Do you the people of Little Rock would have let black kids go to white schools had the military not been sent there?
Answer carefully. This is as important as an I.Q. test.
Yes, eventually. Look, I'm not denying that the federal government does have the ability to correct social injustice. I think the 14th Amendment was wonderful. But you seem to be of the opinion that the only rational rule of law emanates from the feds. You ignore all of the other moralizing that the government gets wrong: war, Japanese internment camps, immigration quotas, Prohibition, the war on drugs, the defense of marriage act, the outlawing of gambling, eminent domain etc. The same power which has been used for good on occasion, is generally used for ill, but you ignore that and focus on the few bright points. The less power these people have, the less damage they are capable of doing to society, because no matter how you may feel, those shiny bright points don't outweigh the vast negatives, especially when the government gets involved in the economy or tries to do stupid shit like the 90% income tax rate FDR installed during the middle of the Depression.Macbeth wrote:
A few simple yes or no questions: do you think Alabama would outlawed slavery if they weren't forced to by the Fed government?Jay wrote:
Oh right, nothing good has ever come from anywhere but the federal government. And business owners didn't build their businesses either. The abolition of slavery began with the states, namely with Pennsylvania in 1775. That movement spread to the rest of the northern states prior to the Civil War. Women had the right to vote in twelve states before it passed nationally. Civil rights, check, gay rights, check. The feds are generally decades behind and all they've done is make universal what individual states have done, kind of like romneycare becoming forced on the rest of us as obamacare. But sure, the feds are fantastic and timely.Macbeth wrote:
Every meaningful social change this country has ever had has come from the federal government. Abolishment of slavery, women's suffrage, workers rights and safety standards, civil rights. The next in line will be gay rights.
The south would still have house slaves had it ''been left to the states''.
Do you think Kentucky would allow women to vote had they not be forced to.
Do you think Alabama would have racially integrated had they not been forced?
Do you the people of Little Rock would have let black kids go to white schools had the military not been sent there?
Answer carefully. This is as important as an I.Q. test.
Last edited by Jay (2012-08-11 06:32:06)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Maybe you lot should stop naming stuff after people in history and just pick events or something that sounds nice like we generally do.
Last edited by Shocking (2012-08-11 06:33:12)
inane little opines
But how else would politicians secure their immortality?Shocking wrote:
Maybe you lot should stop naming stuff after people in history and just pick events or something that sounds nice like we generally do.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Its part of the personality cult thing, just like they think killing Castro will make socialism go away, or killing Bin Laden will make islamic terrorism go away, or killing Saddam..... and so on.Shocking wrote:
Maybe you lot should stop naming stuff after people in history and just pick events or something that sounds nice like we generally do.
Fuck Israel
Are you really as naive as to think that we would willingly give up vast swaths of land "just because". This would be completely unprecedented in the history of human civilization. And in the most powerful empire the world as ever known, possibly will ever know. At the peak of its power. lol.Jay wrote:
Because it was fundamentally a states rights issue. You've made it plain in many posts that you want a strong federal government. That's fine. I'm of the opinion that states should be able to come and go as they please. If they feel they can do better on their own, let em. Let them provide for their own defense, their own highways etc. When Texas was threatening to secede not all that long ago I was ready to wave goodbye. I don't believe in holding states or the people they contain against their will with the use of force. If the feds were actually doing their job and creating an environment where people are happy and feel lucky to live under their governance it would never be an issue. But they don't, because the people that gravitate towards our national government have largely been scum.Macbeth wrote:
How the hell is this a state's rights issue? Criticizing southern culture is not one step removed from dissolving the states.Jay wrote:
well, you have zero respect for any states rights issue, so whatever. We'll never agree.
You can't be this stupid.
The states rights crowd gives the south credit for things that never happened. Southern Republicans (if they ever existed pre-civil war) never chose to secede. Are they supposed to give up their god-given rights to property + prosperity just because the other guys made the choice for them? The entire conflict was a resolution of the 3/5ths compromise which gave the southern aristocracy a disproportionate amount of political power after the revolution. I'm not saying the north was any better then the south, but they were doing what was to be expected of them, that is, defend their god damn property when someones trying to take it. The south instigated the entire thing because they were afraid the expansion of slavery would end and the blacks would revolt. Look it up. States rights my ass. As someone who lives in podunk FL I'd think northerners would be a little more careful before buying into this bullshit. Go read some stuff on the revisionist movement during reconsruction.
Look at northeast Ohio and their meth foundries where there's literally zero black people. I could point to any poor non-black region in America and you'll some fucked up stuff. You're confusing "being poor" with "having no social support system whatsoever because my entire extended family has been singled out and oppressed for generations and still can't find someone who will hire us".
Also, slavery is still very much alive to this day. Are you really going to pretend that people who lived walled off from mainstream society and had NO POLITICAL POWER WHATSOEVER were not de-facto still enslaved? What about the War on Drugs? Do people really think it's a coincidence that this was declared literally 3 years after the Great Society programs were passed? Are people really so naive to think that passing an amendment would magically solve all of their problems?
Also, slavery is still very much alive to this day. Are you really going to pretend that people who lived walled off from mainstream society and had NO POLITICAL POWER WHATSOEVER were not de-facto still enslaved? What about the War on Drugs? Do people really think it's a coincidence that this was declared literally 3 years after the Great Society programs were passed? Are people really so naive to think that passing an amendment would magically solve all of their problems?
No, no, no, never, ever. In FL they've already singled out blacks who vote on the sundays before the election, that's why the Feds told them to stop. Also, the former state GOP president said they were discussing suppressing black votes. This kind of shit is alive and well.Macbeth wrote:
A few simple yes or no questions: do you think Alabama would outlawed slavery if they weren't forced to by the Fed government?
Do you think Kentucky would allow women to vote had they not be forced to.
Do you think Alabama would have racially integrated had they not been forced?
Do you the people of Little Rock would have let black kids go to white schools had the military not been sent there?
Answer carefully. This is as important as an I.Q. test.
Last edited by Spearhead (2012-08-11 08:58:11)
I am sure a slave would appreciate the knowledge that eventually, long after they are dead, the slavery they experience would be illegal.Jay wrote:
Yes, eventually.
What I never understand about libertards is their constant obsession with personal property, except when it's someone else's
Spearhead wrote:
What I never understand about libertards is their constant obsession with personal property, except when it's someone else's
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
A slave in pre war America was worth 10-15 times more than a house. A man's wealth was judged in a large way by how many slaves he owned.Spearhead wrote:
No, it was the attempted forcible takeover of federal property, including DCA2TG2 wrote:
I disagree with the traitor part of your premise.
Profound disagreements about the role of the executive branch need not be viewed as traitorous.
And what about when the actions of the executive branch become traitorous to the ideals that founded the country?
Which treason came first; the dis-honorable government, or the people that rebel against them?
The civil war was largely about the economy of that time and states rights.
Good try though
The Southerners saw abolition as a direct threat to their economy and destruction of their property.
DC was trying to destroy the Souths wealth, thereby taking over or negating the amassed possessions of the people there.
Of course, I am grateful that we remained a union, but I am simp[ly pointing out that the Cesh scum had a valid beef.
Only in that they failed, imo.13urnzz wrote:
breaking away from the country can be viewed as traitorous though. they fucked up by firing on fort sumter, innit.A2TG2 wrote:
Profound disagreements about the role of the executive branch need not be viewed as traitorous.
No, they weren't. That's exactly what I've been saying. The conflict over the EXPANSION of slavery was the defining issue. Look up Kansas-Nebraska Act, Bleeding Kansas and history of the GOP on wikipedia.A2TG2 wrote:
DC was trying to destroy the Souths wealth, thereby taking over or negating the amassed possessions of the people there.
There was simply not enough willpower for the north to instigate the conflict and invade the south of blacks rights. In fact, if you look at the number of troops we had on the East Coast, it was impossible. The war would have never happened had the rebels not taken over/assaulted large numbers of federal property. The secession of the states may have been technically legal but what followed was completely unprecedented. There was no legal process, no formalized agreement, nothing. If the founders had believed secession was a fundamental right of states, they would have written it down somewhere. It was constitutional gray area. This happened before Lincoln even took office.
It goes further back, and slavery was just the tipping point. Andrew Jacksons tariffs were unpopular in the south and South Carolina first attempted nullification, then threatened secession. Jackson called up the army and SC backed down. The same kind of thing caused the civil war thirty years later: unpopular (in this case anticipated) legislation followed by actual secession.Spearhead wrote:
No, they weren't. That's exactly what I've been saying. The conflict over the EXPANSION of slavery was the defining issue. Look up Kansas-Nebraska Act, Bleeding Kansas and history of the GOP on wikipedia.A2TG2 wrote:
DC was trying to destroy the Souths wealth, thereby taking over or negating the amassed possessions of the people there.
There was simply not enough willpower for the north to instigate the conflict and invade the south of blacks rights. In fact, if you look at the number of troops we had on the East Coast, it was impossible. The war would have never happened had the rebels not taken over/assaulted large numbers of federal property. The secession of the states may have been technically legal but what followed was completely unprecedented. There was no legal process, no formalized agreement, nothing. If the founders had believed secession was a fundamental right of states, they would have written it down somewhere. It was constitutional gray area. This happened before Lincoln even took office.
The dismissal of nullification is still being argued today and was the single largest expansion of federal power in history.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
But the Civil War was over the expansion of slavery, more then anything else. A natural by-product of the 3/5ths compromise.
As far as centralization of power, I do not buy the argument that the confederacy would not have had a centralized government of their own. Centralization of power is the political equivalent of survival of the fittest, it's a one way road. Human history has been pretty consistent. A state's defense (or monopoly on violence) is the only reason the state itself exists - what started as a defense against the British has continued up till today. There are only two speeds, slow down or speed up.
As far as centralization of power, I do not buy the argument that the confederacy would not have had a centralized government of their own. Centralization of power is the political equivalent of survival of the fittest, it's a one way road. Human history has been pretty consistent. A state's defense (or monopoly on violence) is the only reason the state itself exists - what started as a defense against the British has continued up till today. There are only two speeds, slow down or speed up.
Last edited by Spearhead (2012-08-12 13:11:07)
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6932
Spearhead, are you saying that centralized government is the natural inevitability of human societies?
The natural inevitability is dictatorship, kings, chiefs, whatever. People in power never willingly give up power, they just add and consolidate.Superior Mind wrote:
Spearhead, are you saying that centralized government is the natural inevitability of human societies?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Platitudes yawn
So just because a slave is valuable means that it's perfectly valid to secede when you think the federal government is going to make it so you can no longer own slaves and therefore lose money? On a somewhat related note, it also should be pointed out that the soldiers that fought in the Civil War didn't really own slaves themselves, the rich plantation owners paid for other men to go in their place.A2TG2 wrote:
A slave in pre war America was worth 10-15 times more than a house. A man's wealth was judged in a large way by how many slaves he owned.Spearhead wrote:
No, it was the attempted forcible takeover of federal property, including DCA2TG2 wrote:
I disagree with the traitor part of your premise.
Profound disagreements about the role of the executive branch need not be viewed as traitorous.
And what about when the actions of the executive branch become traitorous to the ideals that founded the country?
Which treason came first; the dis-honorable government, or the people that rebel against them?
The civil war was largely about the economy of that time and states rights.
Good try though
The Southerners saw abolition as a direct threat to their economy and destruction of their property.
DC was trying to destroy the Souths wealth, thereby taking over or negating the amassed possessions of the people there.
Of course, I am grateful that we remained a union, but I am simp[ly pointing out that the Cesh scum had a valid beef.
False. Not only had Lincoln not passed any legislation at the time the South began to secede, but Lincoln hadn't even taken office. The prior president, Buchanan, was a Southern sympathizer who saw things like the Dred Scott decision happen during his presidency. The South was so eager to secede, they were so positive Lincoln was going to take away all their slaves and whatnot that they didn't even bother to let him take office. If you examine Lincoln's campaign speeches during his entire political career he might have believe slavery was wrong, but he certainly didn't think that he either had the constitutional power to flat out make it illegal or that flat out abolition was the best solution. You could say secession actually gave him a legal path to abolition in that he could do it as a war power and then when the war was over the 13th amendment was easy because the South had already been at least symbolically stripped of their slaves and you certainly weren't going to give a group of people who just fought you for 4 bloody years their confiscated property back.Jay wrote:
The same kind of thing caused the civil war thirty years later: unpopular (in this case anticipated) legislation followed by actual secession.
Centralization is inevitable in what we would call "civilized" societies. In order for humans to live in any sort of large group and with any sort of the amenities that we now live with you need centralization in order to do things like build irrigation systems. The development of centralization in large sedentary societies is as inevitable as the ability to make metal tools and weapons. It really has nothing to do with People being power hungry...Jay wrote:
The natural inevitability is dictatorship, kings, chiefs, whatever. People in power never willingly give up power, they just add and consolidate.Superior Mind wrote:
Spearhead, are you saying that centralized government is the natural inevitability of human societies?
Yep. Add corporations to that list too.Jay wrote:
The natural inevitability is dictatorship, kings, chiefs, whatever. People in power never willingly give up power, they just add and consolidate.Superior Mind wrote:
Spearhead, are you saying that centralized government is the natural inevitability of human societies?
I'd also that that the Democrats + Europeans generally believe this centralization is best counter-balanced with powerful labor unions + social groups. When everyone has skin in the game it's harder to consolidate at the expense of the others... or so the thinking goes.
Last edited by Spearhead (2012-08-12 15:20:57)