-->
@Greyparrot
Not all, but a significant amount of surviving statues are somehow dedicated to adversial postwar movements.
donald trump is trying to kill you
Posts
Total:
172
-->
@3RU7AL
How about the ones doing the disenfranchising? I mean take a look at the current crop of authoritarian socialists coming out of the DNC today. You would have thought they had learned their lesson by now about using the state to disenfranchise productive people by now...guess removing history is a sure way to repeat it.
-->
@Greyparrot
How about the ones doing the disenfranchising? I mean take a look at the current crop of authoritarian socialists coming out of the DNC today. You would have thought they had learned their lesson by now about using the state to disenfranchise productive people by now...guess removing history is a sure way to repeat it.
What "disenfranchising" specifically are you referring to?
Confederate monuments are equivalent to the Confederate flag.
Do you believe we should be displaying the Confederate flag on government property?
Private Confederate museums are obviously permissible.
The controversy is over specifically Confederate symbols on government property.
-->
@3RU7AL
All I am saying is that society should proceed with caution when bulldozing history, lest history repeats. Do you want to witness a cultural Civil war in this country where one culture wipes out another culture in your lifetime?
-->
@Greyparrot
All I am saying is that society should proceed with caution when bulldozing history, lest history repeats. Do you want to witness a cultural Civil war in this country where one culture wipes out another culture in your lifetime?
If people want to move these monuments onto private land that is their right (protected free speech).
The United States government no longer supports the values represented by the Confederate army and should not implicitly honor them with monuments and flags.
A government should be a neutral arbiter of peace and justice that fairly represents all citizens.
-->
@3RU7AL
Why do you think the Union allowed those statues to be erected in the first place after Sherman bulldozed southern culture in his march to Atlanta?
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you want to witness a cultural Civil war in this country where one culture wipes out another culture in your lifetime?Gandhi's 1940 letter to Adolf Hitler: Seek peace or someone will 'beat you with your own weapon'
If the culture-of-hate ---color-of-skin supremacist-- is "wiped out" via any means other than violence, then more power to those efforts.
Unfortunately the most effective ways of fighting hate instituted by color-of-skin, relgion etc type of supremacist is historically the same world around and that is to fight fire with fire.
Peace, love and non-violent action movements have limits to their effectiveness.
....."Ghandi thought the best way to fight Hitler was with non-violence.Gandhi's 1940 letter to Adolf Hitler: Seek peace or someone will 'beat you with your own weapon'"........LINK
And now we have way too many hydrogen{ nulcear } weapons on Earth.
Humanity is indirectly going to kill itself with its own weapons even after those years of Mutual Assured Destruction{ M.A.D. } were addressed to lessen the chances of human annihilation.
So we know have Putin meeting with Kim Young Pooh. Does anyone believe the gangster Putin is pulling a Ghandi on K. Pooh?
-->
@mustardness
Basket of deplorables indeed.
-->
@Snoopy
Krugman is an insufferable grifter; that's why he thrives as both an economist and a journalist.Paul Krugman joined The New York Times in 1999 as an Op-Ed columnist. He is distinguished professor in the Graduate Center Economics Ph.D. program and distinguished scholar at the Luxembourg Income Study Center at the City University of New York. In addition, he is professor emeritus of Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School
-->
@Greyparrot
Doesn't matter. Earth will end in 12 years.
God I hope so.
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
'deep ecologist' Earth is better off without human, sor,God I hope so.
Apocolayptic Pence, the end is near, or
Integrate or perish { Fuller } or,
-->
@Greyparrot
Why do you think the Union allowed those statues to be erected in the first place after Sherman bulldozed southern culture in his march to Atlanta?
Fresh wounds?
If you like the monuments so much, buy them and open a park or a museum.
It's called "free enterprise".
-->
@3RU7AL
I believe the big difference in the North and the South was not so much slavery as it was the difference in climate and environment, which is vast, hence the need for it at plantations, which produced product and made money....Cotton and a great many other crops are able to be cultivated with paid workers and still remain profitable.Please cite proof of this.Some slaves were actually treated better than many blacks that were in the North, and many companies in the North definitely had a role in the continuation of slaves and the slave trade.This argument (some slave owners might have been compassionate) is an absolutely absurd attempt to defend the patently immoral practice of slavery.The north still treated blacks as if they were below them, it just was how it was back then. It was a societal thing that people thought was normal in those days. I don't think they are evil people, it was just evil times, I just think they were the product of their environment and trying to protect their own livelihood.The fact that some people treated minorities as second class citizens is absolutely irrelevant. The idea that just because some people are treated badly by some other people does not in any way justify the patently immoral practice of slavery. They are not equivalent and even if they were, it is utterly beside the point and has no bearing on the morality of slavery specifically.It is equivalent in the fact that the patently immoral practice of racism is a huge part of slavery... do we call racists people traitors? No, we call them racists. I am not justifying racism or slavery, what I am saying is it was the way of the times and the product of the environment. I don't blame them for growing up in that kind of atmosphere and having something grained into their brains. It was still a civil war, which is part of our history, let's teach this to our kids, and use statues as a way to remind them.Brothers fought with Fathers and neighbors joined, not so much for a cause all the time, but to stay alive and keep their businesses going, and protect their loved ones. Just like you may not always agree with whatever war we are in at any given moment, but you can be forced in by extenuating circumstances, especially if the war is on your own soil.Certainly a lot of non-slave-owners fought on both sides. This is also completely beside the point. The richest and most influential people in the Rebel army were slave owners. They fought specifically to defend their right to own other people.I highly doubt the richest, most influential people actually fought in the war. They may have believed in it and advocated it, but they weren't the people dieing on the battlefields. There were others fighting for what they believed was the right cause, just because they lived there.As far as the monuments go and the comparison to the Berlin Wall, I am speaking in terms of physicality, and the ability to see it in person, has a huge impact.I'm pretty sure the "unite the right" protesters didn't want to preserve monuments venerating Rebel soldiers to remind everyone of how horrific the practice of slavery was.Why not? It will show how far we have come as a nation, and what has been fought for to preserve every citizen's freedom.I do lean toward a republican world view, but I am pro-choice. I am for individuality, not for grouping people into categories.Ok, I'm pretty sure the conservatives still group people into categories. What other Republican "values" do you believe are the most important to you?You have to in order to get the census correct, but we don't practice identity politics, except when it comes to undocumented immigrants.I don't believe in taking away money from someone who worked hard, very hard, for it, and giving it to someone who did not, but believes they are entitled to it. People usually get paid based off of the complexity of the job and the hours they put in, some people are addicted to their jobs, or even married to their jobs. They should get paid more. But it comes with a price, making it hard to enjoy the money you make by always working. If they want to give it to someone in their family or donate it to a certain cause, that is their choice. The Government should never get involved with private companies decisions on how much they pay their employees. (unless they have bailed that company out for some reason) like the banks during the recession. None of those executives should have received their bonuses.I want limited Government, and free market. That is one reason our healthcare system is great, because we have the ability of developing drugs using money from the free market for R and D. It may be expensive, but it is there. Access to new breakthroughs may not be available to all at first, but it will be at some point. If we change our healthcare system to free for all, there will be no great advances in the healthcare industry, and the Government will hire incompetent people, require paperwork that will never get filed, and it will be more frustrating for everyone in the country. Anything the government touches usually goes to sh!t, and more regulations in the name of what the Government thinks is good, always have negative unintended consequences that outweigh the good it was supposed to bring.That is why people in other countries that have these systems in place tend to seek us out for help. Good doctors should be paid as good doctors, it gives incentive for them to work hard to be a good doctor. Not all doctors are willing to take a pay cut in order to serve the entire country.
-->
@3RU7AL
God forbid that we have statues as a reminder what happens when we blindly believe what people in power tell you to believe.This seems uncompelling to people who were systematically disenfranchised by "Confederate war figures".
Do you mean because they are dead, or because its just a stupid statue? What's wrong with uncompelling some people?
-->
@DBlaze
You have to in order to get the census correct, but we don't practice identity politics, except when it comes to undocumented immigrants.
Targeting majority Muslim countries for an immigration ban is "identity politics".
Claiming that Barack Obama is a foreigner and a Muslim is "identity politics".
Repeatedly harping on and on about "Christian Values" is "identity politics" (AND virtue signaling).
And as you point out yourself, focusing on asylum seekers and immigrants from Central and South America while simultaneously ignoring the nearly 50% of immigrants who overstay visas from Canada and Europe and Asia would also seem to qualify as "identity politics".
I don't believe in taking away money from someone who worked hard, very hard, for it, and giving it to someone who did not, but believes they are entitled to it.
Well, then you must be 100% anti-insurance and 100% anti-government because both of these institutions take money from nearly everyone and only contribute back to a subset of people who need it.
If I don't own a car, why should I pay taxes to maintain streets?
If I don't have any kids, why should I pay taxes to support schools?
If I don't live to age 65, why should I pay into Social Security?
People usually get paid based off of the complexity of the job and the hours they put in, some people are addicted to their jobs, or even married to their jobs. They should get paid more.
This is a ridiculous myth. I've worked many jobs in my life and the most difficult jobs paid the least. The highest paying job I've held is by far the easiest. BUT BESIDES THAT, nobody except nobody is suggesting that people can't get paid more for some work and less for other work.
But it comes with a price, making it hard to enjoy the money you make by always working. If they want to give it to someone in their family or donate it to a certain cause, that is their choice. The Government should never get involved with private companies decisions on how much they pay their employees.
Look, industry left to "their own devices" we will inevitably end up in an industrial nightmare, exactly like we did in the Gilded Age when workers were pitted against each other, worked for peanuts (or scrip) and had zero safety protections or realistic legal recourse for mistreatment.
(unless they have bailed that company out for some reason) like the banks during the recession. None of those executives should have received their bonuses.
Consider the companies, like Lockheed Martin, who receive 75% of their income directly from the Pentagon. I believe it would be fair to say they are quite literally an extension of the government itself.
I want limited Government, and free market.
Me too.
That is one reason our healthcare system is great,
The government protects big healthcare companies and restricts competition. The healthcare industry is not a good example of a "free market".
because we have the ability of developing drugs using money from the free market for R and D.
The United States Government provides insane sums of money for extremely profitable companies to perform R&D. It is actually one of the most egregious examples of Corporate Welfare.
-->
@DBlaze
It may be expensive, but it is there. Access to new breakthroughs may not be available to all at first, but it will be at some point.
Drugs that are over 20 years old should be available for cheap. Like insulin. Insulin is not a new technology, however, two companies have manged to legally bully everyone else out of the U.S. market and have been raising prices like crazy. This is pure price gouging, not "the best healthcare in the world".
If we change our healthcare system to free for all, there will be no great advances in the healthcare industry, and the Government will hire incompetent people, require paperwork that will never get filed, and it will be more frustrating for everyone in the country.
Americans already have free emergency care for everyone. The cost of a "free" emergency room is 10 to 100 times the cost (to tax payers) of preventative care.
Free healthcare-for-all would actually save everyone money, even in the near-term.
Anything the government touches usually goes to sh!t, and more regulations in the name of what the Government thinks is good, always have negative unintended consequences that outweigh the good it was supposed to bring.
This is a standard Republican Myth. (IFF) the government is incompetent (THEN) why do Republicans have so much breathless respect for the military? (IFF) the government is incompetent (THEN) why don't we still use vigilante mobs and mercenary security forces to provide peace and justice in our communities like we did in the past?
Should we fire all the health inspectors? Are you sure that industry as a whole will just magically fix itself? What about predatory businesses and outright scams? Do the "suckers" deserve to be ripped-off? Do you think hustlers and grifters will just go out of style someday all by themselves? Don't you think we deserve peace officers and regulators and judges that are not EXPLICITLY profit motivated?
That is why people in other countries that have these systems in place tend to seek us out for help.
Those who travel to the United States specifically for medical procedures are usually looking for a specialist for their condition. The number of people who travel outside the United States for treatment dwarfs the inbound medical tourism.
Good doctors should be paid as good doctors, it gives incentive for them to work hard to be a good doctor. Not all doctors are willing to take a pay cut in order to serve the entire country.
There are plenty of amazing doctors in Great Britain, Denmark, Canada, France, Germany, and any number of other industrialized countries that have been offering free basic medical care for over 50 years.
Universal healthcare in the US is not a new idea. It was first proposed by Theodore Roosevelt in 1912.
Also, I believe it is quite a leap of logic to presume that the doctors who get paid the most "are the best doctors". Plastic surgeons for example get paid quite a bit more than the average general practitioner.
-->
@Snoopy
To someone who has been generationally disenfranchised, a statue of a Confederate is like a statue of Jeffrey Dahmer.Do you mean because they are dead, or because its just a stupid statue? What's wrong with uncompelling some people?
It doesn't matter how "good they were at their job", the statue implicitly honors a cold-blooded killer of innocent people.
If you want to place a statue of Jeffrey Dahmer on your own land or open a Jeffrey Dahmer museum, that is your right as a citizen.
But it is inappropriate on government property.
-->
@3RU7AL
How about an someone who served their country for decades, sided with their state, surrendered gracefully, commanded respect not only from their troops, but also their adversaries and union representatives, negotiated reasonable terms of surrender through mutual respect, and/or generally supported their country thereafter? By comparing this to a serial killer I think you are taking this out of context and not giving your opinion a fair hearing. For one, the civil war greatly accelerated the abolition of slavery in the United States which hadn't yet occurred throughout the Northern States.
-->
@3RU7AL
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptible in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln.
-->
@3RU7AL
You have to in order to get the census correct, but we don't practice identity politics, except when it comes to undocumented immigrants.
Targeting majority Muslim countries for an immigration ban is "identity politics". There are many other majority Muslim countries that were not on the ban list... do you not want our country protected from possible terrorism? All it takes is one person.
Claiming that Barack Obama was a Muslim is "identity politics". No it is claiming that he is lying, he is the only one in the entire nation who called ISIS, ISIL.... That was strange, but everyone ignored it.
And as you point out yourself, focusing on asylum seekers and immigrants from Central and South America while simultaneously ignoring the nearly 50% of immigrants who overstay visas from Canada and Europe and Asia would also seem to qualify as "identity politics". They would all be treated exactly the same, but I don't think that people who over stay there visas, should be called undocumented, because they are documented, we know exactly who they are. We can find them, and get rid of them. People that sneak into the country undetected are the only ones that should be referred to as undocumented.
Well, then you must be 100% anti-insurance and 100% anti-government because both of these institutions take money from nearly everyone and only contribute back to a subset of people who need it. I am anti insurance, but we have to have it. I am not 100% anti government.
If I don't own a car, why should I pay taxes to maintain streets? I'm not even going to reply to these.
If I don't have any kids, why should I pay taxes to support schools? I don't support my property taxes going up because the schools can't afford to support undocumented immigrants kids. That is exactly what happened in my home town.
If I don't live to age 65, why should I pay into Social Security? I probably won't, but I have no problem paying into Social Security as long as it comes back to me if I need it
This is a ridiculous myth. I've worked many jobs in my life and the most difficult jobs paid the least. The highest paying job I've held is by far the easiest. BUT BESIDES THAT, nobody except nobody is suggesting that people can't get paid more for some work and less for other work.
it's not a ridiculous myth, it depends on what the industry is, how much profit is made, who owns it. If you work hard and don't get paid enough for what you are doing, then you ask for a raise or you go somewhere else.
Are you using your own experience like I did earlier and got chastised for it regarding the statues? Women are accusing men of getting paid more for the jobs that they do. This may be true, but it is not something the government needs to tackle, women just need to ask for more money.
Look, industry left to "their own devices" we will inevitably end up in an industrial nightmare, exactly like we did in the Gilded Age when workers were pitted against each other, worked for peanuts (or scrip) and had zero safety protections or realistic legal recourse for mistreatment.
That was due to an influx of immigration and people trying to find work, but people that were already here were making good money. This is not something that is going to happen again, unless we really do open the borders.
Consider the companies, like Lockheed Martin, who receive 75% of their income directly from the Pentagon. I believe it would be fair to say they are quite literally an extension of the government itself.
I agree... and they get paid so much money that they don't even know what to do with it, because the Government doesn't know how much these things really cost. You wouldn't believe how much private companies take advantage of the Government because they know they are morons. There are too many people doing too many things, for way too much money. My mom has worked for the DOD for years, and she is finally coming around to understanding what I am talking about. She would not let me speak about this in her presence in the past, now she wants to hear because she is now realizing how ass backwards it is.
I want limited Government, and free market.
Me too.
That is one reason our healthcare system is great,
The government protects big healthcare companies and restricts competition. The healthcare industry is not a good example of a "free market". My example was just trying to prove that we cannot provide free healthcare for all, and what the consequences of that would be. Just like choosing to end your life if you are on death's bed. I understand that this is something that a lot of people want, and I understand why. I would support it if I didn't think about the ramifications and consequences of assisted suicide.
because we have the ability of developing drugs using money from the free market for R and D.
The United States Government provides insane sums of money for extremely profitable companies to perform R&D. It is one of the most egregious examples of Corporate Welfare.
Agreed, and they have their own researches too.... wasteful spending. I know one of the researchers that tests on animals. She is dumb as a rock, love her to death though. She works for the Government and doesn't even know what subsidies are. She told me once that something that costs money at her job is all subsidized, like no one had to pay for it. I asked her if she even knew what that meant, she admitted she didn't.
-->
@Snoopy
How about an someone who served their country for decades, sided with their state, surrendered gracefully, commanded respect not only from their troops, but also their adversaries and union representatives, negotiated reasonable terms of surrender through mutual respect, and/or generally supported their country thereafter? By comparing this to a serial killer I think you are taking this out of context and not giving your opinion a fair hearing. For one, the civil war greatly accelerated the abolition of slavery in the United States which hadn't yet occurred throughout the Northern States.
So, if you kidnap a person from their home and then force them (under threat of death) and their children to work for you until they die or you choose to sell them, and then you TAKE UP ARMS AGAINST your own government when they suggest that you let them go free, and then when it is obvious that you've lost that battle, you surrender and apologize, DOES THAT MAKE YOU A HERO?
The original documents of the Confederacy show quite clearly that the war was based on one thing: slavery. For example, in its declaration of secession, Mississippi explained, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world … a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization." In its declaration of secession, South Carolina actually comes out against the rights of states to make their own laws — at least when those laws conflict with slaveholding. "In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals," the document reads. The right of transit, Loewen said, was the right of slaveholders to bring their slaves along with them on trips to non-slaveholding states.
In its justification of secession, Texas sums up its view of a union built upon slavery: "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."
The myth that the war was not about slavery seems to be a self-protective one for many people, said Stan Deaton, the senior historian at the Georgia Historical Society.
"People think that somehow it demonizes their ancestors," to have fought for slavery, Deaton told LiveScience. But the people fighting at the time were very much aware of what was at stake, Deaton said. [LINK]
The myth that the war was not about slavery seems to be a self-protective one for many people, said Stan Deaton, the senior historian at the Georgia Historical Society.
-->
@DBlaze
My example was just trying to prove that we cannot provide free healthcare for all, and what the consequences of that would be.
Please explain exactly what you mean by this statement. Every other industrialized nation on the planet has some form of universal healthcare.
-->
@DBlaze
Look, industry left to "their own devices" we will inevitably end up in an industrial nightmare, exactly like we did in the Gilded Age when workers were pitted against each other, worked for peanuts (or scrip) and had zero safety protections or realistic legal recourse for mistreatment.That was due to an influx of immigration and people trying to find work, but people that were already here were making good money. This is not something that is going to happen again, unless we really do open the borders.
Are you kidding me? Nearly every single person in America was an immigrant. Unless you were a native Apache, Sioux, Cree, Blackfoot, Mahican, Hopi, Cherokee...
And I'm also pretty sure they were all "undocumented" as well.
Have you heard of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory? Do you really think the owners cared if their workers were immigrants or native born citizens? [LINK]
-->
@DBlaze
Targeting majority Muslim countries for an immigration ban is "identity politics". There are many other majority Muslim countries that were not on the ban list...
Just because you arbitrarily ban 50% of an ethnic or cultural group from your place of business (and not 100%) does not make you "not a racist".
do you not want our country protected from possible terrorism? All it takes is one person.
Oh, you mean like Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, Jared Loughner, Lee Harvey Oswald, Jeffery Dahmer, Charlie Manson, Stephen Paddock, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold...
-->
@3RU7AL
How about an someone who served their country for decades, sided with their state, surrendered gracefully, commanded respect not only from their troops, but also their adversaries and union representatives, negotiated reasonable terms of surrender through mutual respect, and/or generally supported their country thereafter? By comparing this to a serial killer I think you are taking this out of context and not giving your opinion a fair hearing. For one, the civil war greatly accelerated the abolition of slavery in the United States which hadn't yet occurred throughout the Northern States.So, if you kidnap a person from their home and then force them (under threat of death) and their children to work for you until they die or you choose to sell them, and then you TAKE UP ARMS AGAINST your own government when they suggest that you let them go free, and then when it is obvious that you've lost that battle, you surrender and apologize, DOES THAT MAKE YOU A HERO?The original documents of the Confederacy show quite clearly that the war was based on one thing: slavery. For example, in its declaration of secession, Mississippi explained, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world … a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization." In its declaration of secession, South Carolina actually comes out against the rights of states to make their own laws — at least when those laws conflict with slaveholding. "In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals," the document reads. The right of transit, Loewen said, was the right of slaveholders to bring their slaves along with them on trips to non-slaveholding states.In its justification of secession, Texas sums up its view of a union built upon slavery: "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."The myth that the war was not about slavery seems to be a self-protective one for many people, said Stan Deaton, the senior historian at the Georgia Historical Society."People think that somehow it demonizes their ancestors," to have fought for slavery, Deaton told LiveScience. But the people fighting at the time were very much aware of what was at stake, Deaton said. [LINK]
There are many myths surrounding the civil war. One assumption which is so idiotic as to be insulting to insinuate is that the states seceded purely on states rights. For obvious reasons, this should have near universal unacceptance today. Another, with a more pervasive acceptibility is that the southerners were literally "fighting for slavery". Slavery was not going anywhere at the onset of the war. The political interests of the vested elite would predictably be undermined to an increasing degree remaining with the union. Some slave states remained in support of the Union. Others did not. Some confederate slave owners freed their slaves prior to the emancipation proclamation. Most, of course, did not own slaves.
-->
@DBlaze
I am anti insurance, but we have to have it. I am not 100% anti government.
Please explain your personal theory of small government.
-->
@Snoopy
Another, is that the ssoutherners were literally "fighting for slavery". Slavery was not going anywhere. but the political interests of the southern elite would predictably be undermined to an increasing degree.. Some confederate slave owners freed their slaves prior to the emancipation proclamation.
The idea that because some unknown number of slaves were reportedly freed has absolutely zero bearing on the fact that the Confederate states EXPLICITLY name "the institution of slavery" as "the greatest material interest of the world".
For example, in its declaration of secession, Mississippi explained, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world … a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization." In its declaration of secession, South Carolina actually comes out against the rights of states to make their own laws — at least when those laws conflict with slaveholding. [LINK]
-->
@3RU7AL
Targeting majority Muslim countries for an immigration ban is "identity politics". There are many other majority Muslim countries that were not on the ban list...
Just because you arbitrarily ban 50% of an ethnic or cultural group from your place of business (and not 100%) does not make you "not a racist".
It doesn't make you a racist either. He was banning countries, not a religion. These countries were all pointed out by Obama and his administration (this doesn't make him "not a racist" right) years earlier as the ones to keep an eye on for terrorist promotion, behavior, or alliance, as well as additional background checks, treating them differently than people from other countries. All he wanted to do back then is put a ban on those particular countries until they could come up with a better vetting process, but it was challenged for way too long, until finally was upheld as being constitutional. It has since been lifted.
do you not want our country protected from possible terrorism? All it takes is one person.
Oh, you mean like Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, Jared Loughner, Lee Harvey Oswald, Jeffery Dahmer, Charlie Manson, Stephen Paddock, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold...
If they were all from one country, I'm sure that would have been on the list as well. This makes no sense, they are all citizens of this country. You are just talking about crazy people.
-->
@3RU7AL
Another, is that the ssoutherners were literally "fighting for slavery". Slavery was not going anywhere. but the political interests of the southern elite would predictably be undermined to an increasing degree.. Some confederate slave owners freed their slaves prior to the emancipation proclamation.The idea that because some unknown number of slaves were reportedly freed has absolutely zero bearing on the fact that the Confederate states EXPLICITLY name "the institution of slavery" as "the greatest material interest of the world".For example, in its declaration of secession, Mississippi explained, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world … a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization." In its declaration of secession, South Carolina actually comes out against the rights of states to make their own laws — at least when those laws conflict with slaveholding. [LINK]
On a technical note, you are quoting a statement from the state of Mississippi. At the time, people often identified more closely with their respective state.
I believe now, that I have said all I have to say on the matter, if you would like to expound upon your initial statement. To reiterate, the fact of the matter is that confederates did not necessarily cause "generational disenfranchisement", and they did not necessarily base their decisions upon political ideals or the preservation of "the greatest material interest in the world".
If the liberated slaves received 40 acres and a statue of Jefferson Davis, I think I would be cool with that, but a mule would be more useful.
-->
@DBlaze
The subject is "identity politics" (putting people into groups).
It doesn't make you a racist either. He was banning countries, not a religion.
Still counts as "putting people into groups". Not treating people as "innocent until proven guilty".
These countries were all pointed out by Obama and his administration (this doesn't make him "not a racist" right) years earlier as the ones to keep an eye on for terrorist promotion, behavior, or alliance, as well as additional background checks, treating them differently than people from other countries.
Increased scrutiny is clearly justifiable, an outright ban is not.
All he wanted to do back then is put a ban on those particular countries until they could come up with a better vetting process, but it was challenged for way too long, until finally was upheld as being constitutional. It has since been lifted.
I believe the campaign promise was, a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States".
do you not want our country protected from possible terrorism? All it takes is one person.Oh, you mean like Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, Jared Loughner, Lee Harvey Oswald, Jeffery Dahmer, Charlie Manson, Stephen Paddock, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold...If they were all from one country, I'm sure that would have been on the list as well. This makes no sense, they are all citizens of this country. You are just talking about crazy people.
THEY ARE ALL FROM THE SAME COUNTRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you suggesting that other countries don't have "crazy people"?
But let's try to keep our paranoia in perspective.
Falling televisions kill 55 times more people every year than "terrorists". [LINK]
Your number one killer is heart-disease. Should we ban all steak dinners?
Your number two killer is cancer. Should be ban canned foods and sugar?
There are literally thousands of things more dangerous to Americans than Muslims.
Try scare-mongering about the top ten please.