Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: ZetaNine on March 14, 2008, 09:28:26 AM
-
In light of some of the recent clips I've seen of Obama's "spiritual leader"....and with regard the the possibility that this "all style, no substance" guy may become the next President of the United States of America......I was wondering...how long into his Presidency does he wait to petition for slave reparations?
-
accidentally quoted my own post....
no delete post option, eh?
-
Why not? I mean at this point whats one more scam?
-
Why not? I mean at this point whats one more scam?
If that's true........I'm suing the Romans for thowing my people to the lions for sport. I wants me sum pie too.
-
I'm not sure if it's right to ask all of those relatives of former slaves to repay the gov't for anything. Since for the most part they worked off the cost of their transportation long ago.
-
I'll pay slave reperations the day someone can prove that I owned a slave. I don't owe anyone anything for what happened well over 100 years ago.
-
I think we've all been paying reparations for decades now. If either democrat is elected we'll be paying even more.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rdNUynVWZA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rdNUynVWZA)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJYY5BtamYk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJYY5BtamYk)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npYDL7NWivU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npYDL7NWivU)
-
See Rule #5
-
See Rule #5
what of it?
-
This is not going to end well.
And no, it won't happen. Although in a sense, it already does.
-
The only good thing that can come out of an Obama presidency is a republican Congress (hopefully one with some balls this time). They are the ones that pass legislation....not the president!
-
If that's true........I'm suing the Romans for thowing my people to the lions for sport. I wants me sum pie too.
"I wants me sum pie?" Nothing the least bit racist in that, eh? :aok
But not to worry...My informants inside the Obama camp say he won't press for slavery reperations until after they have slept with all the white women and stolen all of your watermelons.
-
ED: Taking it to a separate thread, this will probably get locked.
-
"I wants me sum pie?" Nothing the least bit racist in that, eh? :aok
But not to worry...My informants inside the Obama camp say he won't press for slavery reperations until after they have slept with all the white women and stolen all of your watermelons.
Why should Obama care about it? His mom was a white woman from Kansas, and his dad was a Kenyan. To believe that he has slave reperations in his policy bag is to judge someone on the color of his skin and not the content of his actual blood heritage.
-
Agree 100%, Holden.
-
I only can imagine what can happen in a Russian forum thread on a similar subject.
Slave reparations in Russia got all paid.
Former slaves paid to former masters after 1861.
Difference is that here we never enslaved ethnically-different people. Anyone who wasn't Orthodox Christian was supposed to live according to their tradition, except if they didn't practice slavery. I mean Central-Asian campaigns after 1861.
-
Slave reparations in Russia got all paid.
It was in the USA too. 1 in 7 American men paid for it with their lives at places like Shilo, Antetiam, Wilderness and Gettysburg.
-
It was in the USA too. 1 in 7 American men paid for it with their lives at places like Shilo, Antetiam, Wilderness and Gettysburg.
I don't know much about American Civil war.
But do you seriously think that Civil war was about abolishing slavery?... It's like saying that bombing Yugoslavia was about human rights and invading Iraq was about WMD.
-
Or like saying the Russian Revolution was about implementing a worker's paradise of equality and shared success.
-
Or like saying the Russian Revolution was about implementing a worker's paradise of equality and shared success.
It could be whatever you say in a country where less then 2% of population worked in industry and 90% were illiterate. Compare it to 1940.
Shared success - that's a great sentence! What we got now is a shared failure for 90% of the population... Just like in so-called "free world".
-
The word Slave comes from the Slavic people because so many of them were slaves, and they were not Black.
-
The word Slave comes from the Slavic people because so many of them were slaves, and they were not Black.
Pravoslavniy is a right slave eh?
Slava means glory.
I expect more W.A.S.P.s telling me I am a slave by nature.
Russians invented Tetris. So you can't win fighting with them. Did anyone ever win playing Tetris?...
-
The Norsemen captured and sold so many of the Slavic People, that's how the word Slave came about.
-
The Norsemen captured and sold so many of the Slavic People, that's how the word Slave came about.
Interesting point of view.
May I ask you a question?
Are you so accustomed to a concept of slavery? How many slaves did your great-grand fathers have? Or maybe a leader promised your grand-parents a place to live and some Slavic slaves? In PL, UA, BY, YU or RU?
Still anxious about having some slaves? C'mon. Try bombing us. You're welcome. Always welcome.
-
Slightly off topic, but:
I Remember Robin from Howard Stern (who is black) was talking about the native American Indians. I guess people tried to enslave them, but as she said "They weren't having any of that" and then she laughed.
What that means, I don't know...but it's kind of funny in a way.
-
Interesting point of view.
May I ask you a question?
Are you so accustomed to a concept of slavery? How many slaves did your great-grand fathers have? Or maybe a leader promised your grand-parents a place to live and some Slavic slaves? In PL, UA, BY, YU or RU?
Still anxious about having some slaves? C'mon. Try bombing us. You're welcome. Always welcome.
My family were share croppers in the past, they worked side by side with the slaves. My mother grew up on a cotton farm and was picking cotton before she was three years old. My mother has scars on her back from when her grandmother used a bull whip on her because she accidentally turned over a sled full of cotton into the mud, that my mother just picked. How many of these people asking for reparation even know what cotton looks like?
-
I don't know much about American Civil war.
But do you seriously think that Civil war was about abolishing slavery?...
Yup.
Regardless of several AH threads, South Carolina's concerns about Lincoln's view of slavery was the major point named in their reasons for ceceeding.http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#South%20Carolina (http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#South%20Carolina) The Confederacy knew it was about the north controlling what the south did, and the major all encompassing concern of the south was an overturn of an economic system based on slavery.
-
Holden and I will once again agree to disagree.
The issue was, of course, States Rights and the fight was over whether or not the Federal Government had powers over the States that were not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
From that perspective, it is unfortunate that the South lost because the result is the ever growing Federal nanny state that the US has become.
-
exactly, Lincoln molested the constitution like none other before or since. The civil war was over a powerful central government like we have now VS what the nation was intended to be. Freedom for slaves, the emancipation proclaimation was issued during the war, applying only to southern slaves (A country Lincoln had no power over) in hopes of generating an uprising.
-
Holden and I will once again agree to disagree.
The issue was, of course, States Rights and the fight was over whether or not the Federal Government had powers over the States that were not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
Which is the reason no free state, only slave states secesseeded. It was all these other fed vs state right stuff.
-
I'm not sure if it's right to ask all of those relatives of former slaves to repay the gov't for anything. Since for the most part they worked off the cost of their transportation long ago.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Why should he care about reparations?
It's pretty clear that the colour of his skin carries certain prejudices on this board.
-
Which is the reason no free state, only slave states secesseeded. It was all these other fed vs state right stuff.
Slavery was a factor but the issue that resulted in bloodshed was the issue of States Rights. The North didn't go to war to free the slaves. If you're a student of history, and I think you are, you know that at the start slavery wasn't a factor in uniting the Northern states and putting them on a war footing. As has been pointed out, the Emancipation Proclamation came much later and only applied to States in "rebellion".
You know that States Rights issue though, the one where Lincoln and the North quoted the Constitution on the Federal Governments power to militarily force a State to remain in the Union. Oh...wait....
-
The North didn't go to war to free the slaves.
That's right. The north went to war in response to SC firing on union troops in Ft Sumter. The south went to war first, and SC went to war because... let's see they wrote down there reasons and it went somthing like this, paragraph for paragraph (There are 30 paragraphs in SC’s “Declaration of Immediate Causes” of secession.):
The first 14 are South Carolina’s justifications for it’s belief in the right to secede and become a free and independent state.
15 - Accuses the Union govt of not living up to the constitution and 16 and 17 prepare the reader for the list that follows.
18 - is the first listing of any breech in constitutional law. It says, “"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." First reason listed: Slavery.
18 – Slaves is our property.
19 – Slaves is our property jus’ like horses and yer granpappy agreed with our granpappy that it was so.
20 – Y’all Yankees don’t be sending back our fugitives neither; an’ that makes us madder’n a struck hornet nest.
21 – The free states are picking on us slave states
22 – What the constitution says is y’all shouldn’t oughtn’t be doin’ it
23 – The Union is stomping on us slave holders
24 – You guys is making our slaves uppity and we don’t like it
25 – 25 years now of this anti slavery thing and we are getting tired of it, and now you elect this Lincoln fella.
26 – Now some of you Yankees are even makin’ negroes citizens when they should be out pickin’ cotton..
27 – When Lincoln is sworn in he’s a gonna shoot us ifn we don give up our darkies.
28 – An when he does, we ain’t a gonna be able to keep or slaves.
29 – You Yankees don’t unnerstan’ that God said we could keep ‘em, and there’s a gonna be a knock down drag out if’n ya don’t.
30 – So we gonna leave.
-
I have stated before I am all for reparations. Everyone who was a slave and is still alive should get them, but nothing for the descendants who were never slaves.
-
That's right. The north went to war in response to SC firing on union troops in Ft Sumter. The south went to war first, and SC went to war because... let's see they wrote down there reasons and it went somthing like this, paragraph for paragraph (There are 30 paragraphs in SC’s “Declaration of Immediate Causes” of secession.):
The first 14 are South Carolina’s justifications for it’s belief in the right to secede and become a free and independent state.
Thank you very much. The first 14 will suffice, since they accurately and completely reflect that this was a State's Rights issue.
-
up until the civil war..
It was generally thought that all the states who had freely entered into the union were free to leave if they so desired.. it had been discussed many times.
After the civil war it became known that the federal government would use any excuse to crush by force of arms any state who tried.
that is where we stand today. If you think the "WMD" was weak.. you would puke at the reason a federal government would use to destroy a state like say.. Wyoming or Montana that tried to leave the union.
lazs
-
Being a South Carolinian and given our choices this election cycle - I'd love to see South Carolina lead the way again.
-
The civil war demarked the point where the language switched from "the united states are" to "the united states is".
-
Can't say anybody in my family ever owned slaves, therefore I owe NOBODY NOTHING! You have to have money to have things, last time I talked to my parents about money , they said nobody in our entire family tree has ever had any. So my family couldn't have bought or sold slaves. Anybody that thinks I'm paying money for what a dead guy did 200 years ago needs to go see my complaint manager Helen Waite, if you have a complaint about how your ancestors were treated go to Helen Waite.
-
Slavery was a factor but the issue that resulted in bloodshed was the issue of States Rights. The North didn't go to war to free the slaves. If you're a student of history, and I think you are, you know that at the start slavery wasn't a factor in uniting the Northern states and putting them on a war footing. As has been pointed out, the Emancipation Proclamation came much later and only applied to States in "rebellion".
You know that States Rights issue though, the one where Lincoln and the North quoted the Constitution on the Federal Governments power to militarily force a State to remain in the Union. Oh...wait....
The south believed in States Rights only because they believed it should be a State's decision to choose whether or not to allow slavery to continue.
-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,177760.180.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,177760.180.html)
Holden and Laser, I feel certain that none of us have changed our views since that 2006 discussion. I stand by what I said then and I feel the evidence I provided supports my position.
I'm sure you feel the same way, the only difference being that both of you are wrong. :devil
We might as well save the electronic ink, right?
-
Who are you to call time on useless internet intardnet debate in such a high-handed manner? Re-hash the same old arguments damn you! :salute
-
What's next, arguing about Mac vs Windows?
-
What's next, arguing about Mac vs Windows?
Well, if you insist!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVwbhsqEyNI
>>Ducks hijack brick<<
Regards,
Sun
-
What's next, arguing about Mac vs Windows?
Oh Chit... I'm caught lookin into windows again.
This is where DiabloTX accuses me of Hijackin a Thread again
For the record I didn't bring my name up or lookin into windows until this post.
:O
Mac
-
Thank you very much. The first 14 will suffice, since they accurately and completely reflect that this was a State's Rights issue.
But.. The first 14 are South Carolina’s justifications for it’s belief in the right to secede and become a free and independent state.
You see the first 14 paragraphs,
P1. We accuse yall of frequent violations of the contract by which we became a nation.
(no specific violation listed)
P2. So we b'lieve we now independant of y'all
P3. When we as all gettin away from King George, we all said we was free and independant states
P4. We all said then that is the gobment was bad we could get rid of it
P5. After we don declared King George wasn't King no more, each of us wrote our own contracts. count 'em 13.
P6. So we all went to war agin them English, an' Ole King George said done proclaimed us all free and independant when he done signed the surrender.
P7. So we still b'leive we are ok in sayin we can make our own counrty and to hell witch y'all
P8. Still, after we won the war, we wrote the constitution of all of us together.
P8. An we all agreed to it.
P9. If only 9 of us agreed to it, the other 4 could have been free to go at it alone.
P10. Now there was one thing in the contract that said the union can't do what each state is s'posed to do.
P11. Now that makes it clear that we can do what we wanna, and the Union can't do just whatever.
P12. So we accuse 14 of yall with breakin the rules.
(No specifics)
P13. Now the only reason we agreed to it at all was that y'all would let us keep our slaves.
P 14. Ya'll haven't been sendin us back our criminals neither.
-----
So it looks like the only consitutional argument South Carolina made other than slavery was that they could leave the Union. Oh and sending back fugitives from justice. So apparently the rebs went to war because they could.
So if you think that SC went to war on states right issues, the only one they taked about was the ability to secceed, and that the other states were treating them poorly a=on account of them being slavery states. ....
-
Well of course it was States Rights...
States Rights to have SLAVES!
Arguing States Rights is like arguing that the pool gets you wet, not the water in it.
-
Well of course it was States Rights...
States Rights to have SLAVES!
Arguing States Rights is like arguing that the pool gets you wet, not the water in it.
MT, I don't think states should have the rights to own slaves. I'd have expected better from you.
;)
-
So it looks like the only consitutional argument South Carolina made other than slavery was that they could leave the Union.
Thank you again.
Although I don't accept your various adaptations, let's for the moment just look at this one.
In that Constitutional argument, it happens that South Carolina was correct. Unless you are prepared to post that part of the original Constitution that specficially denies a State the right to leave the Union and the other part that specifically enumerates the power to militarily force a State remain in the Union?
Ah, I see.... the Constitution does not enumerate that power to the Federal government, does it?
So, SC had the right to leave and SC had the right to ask the military forces of a foreign power to leave sovereign SC territory which SC did. The Feds refused. SC tried to negotiate; the Feds declined. SC used force.
All this is in the other thread, in case you forgot.
-
so some of you guys feel that the feds went to war with the south because.....
because they felt the south was mean to negros?
seriously.. do you think they went to war because the south had slaves? Yet.. you think WMD was an excuse?
Lincoln himself said that he would not free one slave if it would keep the union together.
lazs
-
The South was starting to ship it's cotton straight to other countries, bypassing the middleman merchants up North. The Northern merchants no longer getting proceeds from the selling of Southern cotton is the reason for the war.
-
The federal government conspired to sink the merrimac, thus giving us a reason to go to war.
-
The federal government conspired to sink the merrimac, thus giving us a reason to go to war.
That's a good one Laser... :rofl
-
so some of you guys feel that the feds went to war with the south because.....
because they felt the south was mean to negros?
seriously.. do you think they went to war because the south had slaves? Yet.. you think WMD was an excuse?
Lincoln himself said that he would not free one slave if it would keep the union together.
lazs
No Mr. Spin.
The South went to war because their right to OWN people was in danger of being abolished.
-
The North was using slavery as an issue to try to force the South to return to using Northern merchants to transport cotton. The war was about greed on both sides.
-
I'm not sure if it's right to ask all of those relatives of former slaves to repay the gov't for anything. Since for the most part they worked off the cost of their transportation long ago.
If by chance you are talking about the ride over in slave ships. I don't think they were enjoying a ride on a carnival cruise ship....
-
Boy a topic like this gets the closet racists, to come out like ants being drawn out and getting stuck in mollases.
Notice most of them are conservatives.....
<----Black man
-
The North was using slavery as an issue to try to force the South to return to using Northern merchants to transport cotton. The war was about greed on both sides.
Thats what it was.
The US government used slavery as the issue to go to war with the South and the USC government used states rights as thier issue.
Afterall, why would all those Southerners go to war just to protect slavery? How many people in the South actually owned slaves? Less than 5%?
-
LOL ledpig.. now that we know you are a "black man".... what? that gives you extra insight? or it means you don't have to make any sense?
Or.. do you simply mean that only you can define racist? I would say that you and other negros are much more racist than any white people I see on a day to day basis.
the only thing I have noticed about people who must make sure everyone knows their race is.. that they are always the first to play the race card. I am not in the least interested in what color you are.. you would be wrong if you were purple with pink polka dots.... ignorance has no color.
lazs
-
Thats what it was.
The US government used slavery as the issue to go to war with the South and the USC government used states rights as thier issue.
Afterall, why would all those Southerners go to war just to protect slavery? How many people in the South actually owned slaves? Less than 5%?
A major part of the South's whole Economy and economic sovereignty was won on the backs of people they didn't pay for their labor. Making their trades even much more lucrative.
Losing that was not something they were prepared to do.
-
LOL ledpig.. now that we know you are a "black man".... what? that gives you extra insight? or it means you don't have to make any sense?
Or.. do you simply mean that only you can define racist? I would say that you and other negros are much more racist than any white people I see on a day to day basis.
the only thing I have noticed about people who must make sure everyone knows their race is.. that they are always the first to play the race card. I am not in the least interested in what color you are.. you would be wrong if you were purple with pink polka dots.... ignorance has no color.
lazs
Lasz thank you for writing a whole paragraph and assuming you know anything about me or what i meant just by me pointing out that i was black.
All your assumptions only prove how ignorant you are.
I would explain but...... nevermind.
Am i the only one that thinks this guy is one of the biggest imbeciles on here?
-
Many Southerners did not approve of slavery, because it was taking jobs away from them. If the South had aloud the Northern merchants to continue transporting the cotton, the South would have outlawed slavery themselves within 20 to 30 years.
-
Damn, did Laz accidentally swallow a bunch of crazy pills?
I'm not sure if it's right to ask all of those relatives of former slaves to repay the gov't for anything. Since for the most part they worked off the cost of their transportation long ago.
This quote is was LEDPIG was referring too. No reason to go ape watermelon over him Lazs.
-
Can't say anybody in my family ever owned slaves, therefore I owe NOBODY NOTHING! You have to have money to have things, last time I talked to my parents about money , they said nobody in our entire family tree has ever had any. So my family couldn't have bought or sold slaves. Anybody that thinks I'm paying money for what a dead guy did 200 years ago needs to go see my complaint manager Helen Waite, if you have a complaint about how your ancestors were treated go to Helen Waite.
Imo, it wouldn't matter if your forefathers had owned slaves. Or if mine had, you and I have not so we don't owe reparations for what others have done.
-
The whole sour point of the whole post is, Barak Obama, or anyone in his campaign, for that matter, has not come out and made it an official standing point. You guys' have argued for 5 pages based on an assumption. :rofl
-
nuke.. you seriously need to get up to speed on your reading comprehension thing....
ledpig had already responded to the whole reparations for the ride thing.. what he then went on to do was unrelated...
"Boy a topic like this gets the closet racists, to come out like ants being drawn out and getting stuck in mollases.
Notice most of them are conservatives.....
<----Black man"
now.. paint him as the victim here will ya? show me how this sensitive negro person is not playing the race card and is not "going off" on the rest of us... I guess in nuke world.. it is ok for him tho cause.. well.. he is "special"?
I am the negros worst nightmare.. I am not afraid of em and I don't feel guilty for them being negro. I simply don't care about their color as a reason or an excuse.
lazs
-
Lazs, this will go nowhere. I saw what he typed. No big deal to me.
You've just read a lot into what you believe are my thoughts on a bunch of issues that I never even discussed. You sound like you are going crazy, in my opinion.
-
Lazs, when you go to such lengths to downplay any opinion you have on race and to say "aw shucks, I don't care what color people are", it's kinda rough for everyone who knows your past to take you seriously. This isn't a comment on what you're saying in this thread, I'm not trying to make an ad hominem, but you might consider toning down some of the fervent "we're all equal, I don't know what he's talking about" stuff if you want to keep focus on what you're saying now instead of what you used to be.
It's for the same reason I'd avoid pointing too many fingers at fat star trek nerd teenagers or Rich46yold wouldn't want to make too much of a fuss about pre-op transexuals.
;)
-
nuke.. you seriously need to get up to speed on your reading comprehension thing....
ledpig had already responded to the whole reparations for the ride thing.. what he then went on to do was unrelated...
"Boy a topic like this gets the closet racists, to come out like ants being drawn out and getting stuck in mollases.
Notice most of them are conservatives.....
<----Black man"
now.. paint him as the victim here will ya? show me how this sensitive negro person is not playing the race card and is not "going off" on the rest of us... I guess in nuke world.. it is ok for him tho cause.. well.. he is "special"?
I am the negros worst nightmare.. I am not afraid of em and I don't feel guilty for them being negro. I simply don't care about their color as a reason or an excuse.
lazs
First off i brought up the black man thing as a sarcastic aside, not meaning anything. You seem to think i'm holding that up as meaning that i'm using that as a reason for something or that i feel my opinion is somehow special...(which i don't).
Secondly i said that statement responding to the comment of the slaves descendants "working off their trip over here". ... "and that they probably worked it off a long time ago".
I responded to that by basically saying it was probably no pleasure cruise and they probably would have rather not been taken anyway.
I thought that statement was rather untowardly and ignorant...maybe i read it wrong.
But Lasz do you see how you think you know what i'm saying and you really don't and then you write a whole little paragraph about it.
Honestly man take your sweet medication jeez...
Lasz the only thing you should be afraid of is your own idiocy....
-
As far as thruster statement about "I'm not sure if it's right to ask all of those relatives of former slaves to repay the gov't for anything. Since for the most part they worked off the cost of their transportation long ago." if anyone actually took that as him being serious then I think you need to invest in a sense of humor.
And as for you(LEDPIG) pointing out that your "A black man" I think it did come off as you saying that we should look at your statements differently because of it, I mean I don't see anyone else on here pointing out what race they are.
Now as for the subject of reparations, slavery ended over 140 years ago, theres no person alive today who benefited from, or was exploited because of slavery so why should money be paid to anyone.
-
As far as thruster statement about "I'm not sure if it's right to ask all of those relatives of former slaves to repay the gov't for anything. Since for the most part they worked off the cost of their transportation long ago." if anyone actually took that as him being serious then I think you need to invest in a sense of humor.
Yea it's hard to understand peoples implied meanings on here so if he was joking i am sorry. But i still would like to make that point about what he was saying.
And as for you(LEDPIG) pointing out that your "A black man" I think it did come off as you saying that we should look at your statements differently because of it.
Well i didn't mean it that way i meant it sarcastically...so thats that.
Now as for the subject of reparations, slavery ended over 140 years ago, theres no person alive today who benefited from, or was exploited because of slavery so why should money be paid to anyone.
I totally agree with you on that.
-
I'll go w/ Trax on all the above points. I do think this whole thread is predicated on a pretty dumb (and possibly racist) presumption, that candidate Obama would make slave reparations an issue because he's black. I'd like to see a citation on that.
-
I'll go w/ Trax on all the above points. I do think this whole thread is predicated on a pretty dumb (and possibly racist) presumption, that candidate Obama would make slave reparations an issue because he's black. I'd like to see a citation on that.
Yea i though the thread itself was pretty prejudicially premeditated. By saying Obama might want to make reparations cause he's black. Which caused me to make the "dreaded statement Lasz refered too" then totally missed with his ignorant self.
-
I doubt Obama is dumb enough to bring up reparation, he would loose a lot of his white constituents.
-
I doubt Obama is dumb enough to bring up reparation, he would loose a lot of his white constituents.
I haven't seen where he has-This whole thread is as false as a three-dollar bill.
-
exactly, Lincoln molested the constitution like none other before or since. The civil war was over a powerful central government like we have now VS what the nation was intended to be. Freedom for slaves, the emancipation proclaimation was issued during the war, applying only to southern slaves (A country Lincoln had no power over) in hopes of generating an uprising.
It's statements like this i was responding too. Anybody who thinks Lincoln was molesting the constitution. By drafting something into it, something that allowed people not to be beaten and hung if they didn't work for free, and to be treated like humans. Something that Lincoln should have never had to do if America had lived up to what it said in it's constitution.
Secondly, the emancipation proclamation had nothing to with slaves in the South. Only Northern slaves were considered free. Didn't have a darn difference over Southern slaves, they remained in a state of slavery.
And jeezuz if you think Lincoln did this to generate an uprising....wow. You'd probably like to see me picking your cotton right now wouldn't ya.
-
One could have posted a thread entitled simply "Reparations" and I bet it would get plenty of action. And as for assuming my original post was less than serious, well, maybe only a little.
I'm not interested in entering into what I find an almost comical debate. That's why I took the droll approach. I don't tend to cater well to knee jerk revisionism. The context and history of the African slave trade is already out there. If one chooses to draw conclusions based on the facts that run counter to mine, so be it. We live in a world where B. Spears is a fluff'n millionaire and children starve on the streets.
-
A major part of the South's whole Economy and economic sovereignty was won on the backs of people they didn't pay for their labor. Making their trades even much more lucrative.
Losing that was not something they were prepared to do.
So if that is true, it just means that the 5% or so that owned slaves was making all the money. WHY then would the Southern white man, that doesn't have the money to own slaves, go and fight in the war?
Slavery was on the way out, If the war hadn't started, slavery would have been done away with anyway.
-
Lazs, when you go to such lengths to downplay any opinion you have on race and to say "aw shucks, I don't care what color people are", it's kinda rough for everyone who knows your past to take you seriously. This isn't a comment on what you're saying in this thread, I'm not trying to make an ad hominem, but you might consider toning down some of the fervent "we're all equal, I don't know what he's talking about" stuff if you want to keep focus on what you're saying now instead of what you used to be.
It's for the same reason I'd avoid pointing too many fingers at fat star trek nerd teenagers or Rich46yold wouldn't want to make too much of a fuss about pre-op transexuals.
;)
Lazs just seems like he's had enough with a certain strain of BS, just like LEDPIG or others might be sick of yet other strains of BS, and over the net it'll all make for some false positives and a thread about (factualy) nothing that goes nowhere fast... The civil war precursors would make for an interesting discussion, though.
-
So if that is true, it just means that the 5% or so that owned slaves was making all the money. WHY then would the Southern white man, that doesn't have the money to own slaves, go and fight in the war?
Slavery was on the way out, If the war hadn't started, slavery would have been done away with anyway.
You do know that usually in a countries economy system, usually all of it is connected in some way. So even though you may not be a direct participant in a certain business and revenue gathering system, the failure of one can cause undue strain and stress to the whole thing and the people in said country. Thus why slave labor was a major part.
Ever hear of "The Great Depression" ?? Some people's stock crashed and everybody was screwed..
Secondly.... do you remember at all any of the racial things that were going on up untill the sixties when the civil rights movement was in full swing?
Now look at any of the clips of police sicking dogs on people, spraying them with firehoses, beating them with nightsticks as they tried to march and the general amount they tried to fight black people even drinking from the same water fountain or sitting anywhere they wanted on a stupid bus and tell me people of the South would have voluntarily ended slavery by themselves...
No really....
Come on man
Some of you folks lack of grasp of the situation is amazing....
-
And less then 60 years ago Jews were segregated in some Northern cities.
-
3 generations of a welfare system I think makes it even.
-
3 generations of a welfare system I think makes it even.
I guess nothing but black people are on welfare right?
-
You do know that usually in a countries economy system, usually all of it is connected in some way. So even though you may not be a direct participant in a certain business and revenue gathering system, the failure of one can cause undue strain and stress to the whole thing and the people in said country. Thus why slave labor was a major part.
Ever hear of "The Great Depression" ?? Some people's stock crashed and everybody was screwed..
Secondly.... do you remember at all any of the racial things that were going on up untill the sixties when the civil rights movement was in full swing?
Now look at any of the clips of police sicking dogs on people, spraying them with firehoses, beating them with nightsticks as they tried to march and the general amount they tried to fight black people even drinking from the same water fountain or sitting anywhere they wanted on a stupid bus and tell me people of the South would have voluntarily ended slavery by themselves...
No really....
Come on man
Some of you folks lack of grasp of the situation is amazing....
So your saying that Blacks were treated as equals in the North before during and after the Civil War? :rolleyes:
-
So your saying that Blacks were treated as equals in the North before during and after the Civil War? :rolleyes:
Are you trolling?
-
So your saying that Blacks were treated as equals in the North before during and after the Civil War? :rolleyes:
By Lazs's definition, sure. They had the same right to operate within the restrictions of their race that whites did with their race. You aren't suggesting that they be given 'special rights' like, say, voting, are you? That'd be a 'special right' because it's a right they didn't have under the restrictions their race required before the constitution was amended.
-
Ya know threads like this are why I even bothered to look at this message board again.
In a time when everybody is supposed to be equal,and everybody is supposed to get along, and theres not supposed to be any racial s**t anymore, why is a thread like this even popular? I don't know, maybe its me, but I don't see how anybody can analyze the past if they weren't even there. Heres a hint, the salves, salve owners, traders, catchers, men, women, children, areALL DEAD, get a clue people ifs over, your beating a dead, the underlying reality of this thread will NEVER go away as long as its brought up day after day
-
It's statements like this i was responding too. Anybody who thinks Lincoln was molesting the constitution.
Those that have spent quite a bit of time on studying the Civil War and that pre-war era would immediately recognize that the reference here is to Lincoln's illegal suspension of habeus corpus, implementation of military tribunals for civilians, declaration of martial law and having Congressional representatives that spoke against him deported to Canada. Of course, his greatest violation of the Constitution was in using military force to keep States in the Union. In short, Lincoln ignored the Constitution to a far greater degree than any other President before or since.
the emancipation proclamation had nothing to with slaves in the South. Only Northern slaves were considered free. Didn't have a darn difference over Southern slaves, they remained in a state of slavery.
You need to brush up on the facts of the Emancipation Proclamation. It did not apply to slaves in border states fighting on the Union side; nor did it affect slaves in southern areas already under Union control. Naturally, the states in rebellion did not act on Lincoln's order, so it had no effect at all in those areas.
So, as you see, it was entirely about slaves in the South but it had no effect on slaves in the South.
By the way, for any still reading this thread the earlier thread I linked has a very good in depth discussion of the lead up to the civil war. There are many economic issues, like tariffs, that were generating much animosity between the North and the South long before Fort Sumter.
From that thread, one of my quotes:
In 1832 this very same South Carolina passed the Nullification Ordinance that declared the Federal tariff of 1828 and 1832 null and void within the state borders of South Carolina. Clearly a State's Rights issue and one that saw Federal warships off Charleston. Jackson stated that SC stood on "the brink of insurrection and treason". Had the Civil War started then and there, it would have been irrefutably a State's Rights issue.
Those of you with an interest in a fairly extensive tour of the runup to the Civil War may want to read that thread. Be forewarned, it's long.
-
Thank you again.
Although I don't accept your various adaptations, let's for the moment just look at this one.
In that Constitutional argument, it happens that South Carolina was correct.
So you say the reason for the SC’s secession was because they had a right to.
No other reason.
Unless you are prepared to post that part of the original Constitution that specifically denies a State the right to leave the Union and the other part that specifically enumerates the power to militarily force a State remain in the Union?
Ah, I see.... the Constitution does not enumerate that power to the Federal government, does it?
Except for this:
Section 8. The Congress shall have power:
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
And of course that is what congress did after the Ft Sumter battle when Lincoln proclaimed:
Whereas an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, and the laws of the United States for the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed therein comformably to that provision of the Constitution which requires duties to be uniform throughout the United States:
So, SC had the right to leave and SC had the right to ask the military forces of a foreign power to leave sovereign SC territory which SC did.
Only if you accept that SC was an independent nation at the time. And of course that was an unconstitutional act of the state legislatures, because;
Article. VI. - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
I think it can be safely argued that throwing away the constitution is not the greatest way to support it.
All this is in the other thread, in case you forgot.
-
There is no part of the Constitution that forbids a State from putting the succession issue before its legislature, voting on it and acting on that vote.
In short, it is not insurrection for a Legislature to vote to withdraw from the Union. The South did not attempt to overthrow the government of the Union or the North. They attempted to withdraw from the Union, leaving the North's form of government unchanged for the North. That is in no way insurrection. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a provision making a State bound forever to the Union just because they ratified the Constitution.
As you pointed out, this is all in the other thread. We're being profligate with our electronic ink.
-
Are you trolling?
No, its just that you sound as though the North was on a holy crussde to free the black man in the Civil War. It was one of the issues but States Rights was the big reason for it.
-
There is no part of the Constitution that forbids a State from putting the succession issue before its legislature, voting on it and acting on that vote.
In short, it is not insurrection for a Legislature to vote to withdraw from the Union. The South did not attempt to overthrow the government of the Union or the North. They attempted to withdraw from the Union, leaving the North's form of government unchanged for the North. That is in no way insurrection. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a provision making a State bound forever to the Union just because they ratified the Constitution.
As you pointed out, this is all in the other thread. We're being profligate with our electronic ink.
I think firing on Union troops is insurrection...but that's just me. Am I right in my understanding that you continue to think that SC seceeded for the reason that they had a right to do it? I mean that's what I'm getting.
-
I'll just refer you to the other thread again.
That one is refuted there as well.
-
Well I've been paying alot of taxes to pay for fat lazy welfare reciepients to sit on their fat tulips in their 200k affordable housing collecting Welfare and food stamps along with every other program they qualify for. I think that makes me a slave. So Yup Slave Reparations sounds good to me. :D
-
I doubt Obama is dumb enough to bring up reparation, he would loose a lot of his white constituents.
I doubt it too because they have not made enough advancements with body armor for such an attempt! LOL
-
No, its just that you sound as though the North was on a holy crussde to free the black man in the Civil War. It was one of the issues but States Rights was the big reason for it.
No i do not believe they were on a holy crusade. I believe i have heard that Lincoln was quite a bit predjudiced himself. The North was no more interested, maybe just a little bit more lenient than the South and more willing to change.
Along with all the other political and States issued that you and the others have brought up.
-
Those that have spent quite a bit of time on studying the Civil War and that pre-war era would immediately recognize that the reference here is to Lincoln's illegal suspension of habeus corpus, implementation of military tribunals for civilians, declaration of martial law and having Congressional representatives that spoke against him deported to Canada. Of course, his greatest violation of the Constitution was in using military force to keep States in the Union. In short, Lincoln ignored the Constitution to a far greater degree than any other President before or since.
You need to brush up on the facts of the Emancipation Proclamation. It did not apply to slaves in border states fighting on the Union side; nor did it affect slaves in southern areas already under Union control. Naturally, the states in rebellion did not act on Lincoln's order, so it had no effect at all in those areas.
So, as you see, it was entirely about slaves in the South but it had no effect on slaves in the South.
By the way, for any still reading this thread the earlier thread I linked has a very good in depth discussion of the lead up to the civil war. There are many economic issues, like tariffs, that were generating much animosity between the North and the South long before Fort Sumter.
From that thread, one of my quotes:
Those of you with an interest in a fairly extensive tour of the runup to the Civil War may want to read that thread. Be forewarned, it's long.
Thank You, Toad for correcting me. I was alluding to some of those things. And some of those other things you made me remember by bringing them up. You are quite right.
You sound very knowledgeble. Are you a History major, or civil war buff?
Always nice to hear someone with a nice objective grasp of the facts and present it in a very intelligent and reasonable way.
Thank You.
:)
-
..
-
ledpig, chairboy and nuke...
""Boy a topic like this gets the closet racists, to come out like ants being drawn out and getting stuck in mollases.
Notice most of them are conservatives.....
<----Black man"
how is the above statement not playing the race card and therefore... racist?
Who here is making all the assumptions?
oh but wait.. it was "sarcastic".. BS.. he pointed out his race for any advantage it might give him.. any leverage.. and it worked.. all of a sudden.. anything racist he says is dismissed and he no longer has to make sense..
lazs
-
Well, I have two degrees in history, including an MSE, so I've spent a great deal of time studying that particular era.
If you're going to debate the causes of the Civil War, you're going to have to give up the attempts to seize the moral high ground.
The secession crisis of 1861 was not an insurrection in its inception. The Deep South states withdrew in a peaceful, if somewhat uncertain and cautious manner. Negotiations were underway from the beginning between Lincoln and the newly formed CSA government, to prevent bloodshed. Lincoln certainly hoped to persuade these states to return peacefully to the union. Most leaders on both sides of the issue wanted to avoid violence. However, there were, of course, hot-heads on both sides who wanted war. Unfortunately, some of these controlled the batteries aimed at Fort Sumter.
What might have happened if those batteries had not precipitated that conflict is one of the great unanswered questions of our history. Would Lincoln have invaded the South if that was the case? Would the Southern States have been permitted to leave the Union peacefully? Since the states entered into the Union voluntarily, would their "right" to leave voluntarily be recognized by the Federal government?
The entire argument over secession and states' rights would have had to have been settled with debate and negotiation, rather than by force-of-arms, which is the worst method for settling ideological questions of this nature.
-
Heres a hint, the salves, salve owners, traders, catchers, men, women, children, areALL DEAD,
A little salve never hurts anyone. :)
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #6
-
Or that what i'm saying is racist?
-
led.. I am sure that it has not escaped anyones attention that you were the first to call people racist. I just pointed out the irony of that. If you want to not have to listen to people make racist charges then you would first have to muzzle yourself.
I did find your comment about the ride here kind of amusing tho... lighthearted even. No problem with that..
lazs
-
So who's ahead?
-
affirmative action + black history month
The sum of those two idiocies should just about cover whatever suffering the great great great grandsons/daughters of slaves undergo as a result of their ancestor's bondage... The rest of the suffering is their own doing.
The moment the civil rights movement went from 'give us freedom' to just plain 'give us', all sympathy should have been withdrawn.
-
I suppose Lasz calling what i'm saying "BS" is not considered flaming or insulting another member?
How PC does the forum have to get before you're satisfied enough to stop tugging at the mods' cape? Come on...
-
I had no problem when HTC locked the O'Club for however long it was.
-
I had no problem when HTC locked the O'Club for however long it was.
:huh
-
I had no problem when HTC locked the O'Club for however long it was.
Must have been a banner week for your local KY Jelly vendor.
-
well, I took the time to read this.
I feel like I'm missing something... I didn't understand the discord. Maybe its because I'm sleep deprived today...
Anyway, I think government enforced payments of slave reparations of any kind are so extremely undo-able, unproductive and divisive in our country, not to mention undeserved by people who are alive today, that the idea should be dismissed out of hand.. I say we acknowledge that people who lived in the continental US and many other places in the world engaged in slavery some time ago, and move on. Lets not dismiss the fact that white racism and black racism exist today. Let's acknowledge it, and move on.
Stand up for what is right and fair and true in your own time. What more can a person do?
-
well, I took the time to read this.
I feel like I'm missing something... I didn't understand the discord. Maybe its because I'm sleep deprived today...
Anyway, I think government enforced payments of slave reparations of any kind are so extremely undo-able, unproductive and divisive in our country, not to mention undeserved by people who are alive today, that the idea should be dismissed out of hand.. I say we acknowledge that people who lived in the continental US and many other places in the world engaged in slavery some time ago, and move on. Lets not dismiss the fact that white racism and black racism exist today. Let's acknowledge it, and move on.
Stand up for what is right and fair and true in your own time. What more can a person do?
:aok Pretty much my view of it.
-
led.. I am sure that it has not escaped anyones attention that you were the first to call people racist. I just pointed out the irony of that. If you want to not have to listen to people make racist charges then you would first have to muzzle yourself.
I did find your comment about the ride here kind of amusing tho... lighthearted even. No problem with that..
lazs
Yea Lasz i responded in kind when i saw the topic about Barack Obama possibly making reparations a part of his campaign. Why would he make reparations a part of his campaign, any more than any one else.
I then commented and said in that case he might as well make providing, watermelon, fried chicken and collard greens for everyone a major campaign issue.
The shear ignorance and blind insulting stupidity of that statement inscensed me.
Would i be wrong for saying that all Hispanics drive lowriders, or all jewish are money hungry bankers, lawyers. Or that all whites drive pickups and live in double wides, or some other ignorant comment like that. Yea i'd be wrong for it. Who even thinks like that anymore?
In never ceases to amaze me how some folks around here can lob shells like that around but when someone responds to it and refutes it they get see rule number whatever.
I shouldn't have to say anything about it, shouldn't even be an issue. Who still thinks in those ways in these days?
-
So it's ok to note elements that tipify cultures, only if they've never been used derogatorily?
-
What the hell's wrong with watermelon, fried chicken, and collard greens?!? That's southern food and probably eaten by more whites than blacks. To speak of it as if it were somehow disparaging is insulting. Damn yankees. :P
-
I then commented and said in that case he might as well make providing, watermelon, fried chicken and collard greens for everyone a major campaign issue.
I'm not sure about the collard greens since I've never had them, but the fried chicken and watermelon sure sound good. :D
-
Some people in this thread make me sick.
Ledpig is correct, there is at least one racist here and he is one of the biggest mouths around these boards. He likes to put words into peoples mouths and his posting style is usually argumentative and thick-headed.
The guy I am talking about also said that he would never hire a black guy. He said this right on this board. He said if he had to interview a black guy, he'd smile and be polite, then toss his resume in the trash afterwards. Then he claims to not care about a person's skin color. He is a liar.
I don't know if he'd hire a purple guy though, because he never mentioned purple people before.
Ledpig, you seem like a nice guy. Nothing good will come of this thread, except maybe outing at least one racist.
-
It doesn't matter if it makes you sick.. Saying it makes you sick is akin to ringing Skuzzy's lock-o-meter.. It does nothing to advance the discussion. If you think there's something wrong with what someone said, articulate why it doesn't stand up to reason.
Something as unreasonable as excessively racist ideology shouldn't be hard to dismantle.. Any 6-7yo kid can see it's all fabrications.
-
It doesn't matter if it makes you sick.. Saying it makes you sick is akin to ringing Skuzzy's lock-o-meter.. It does nothing to advance the discussion. If you think there's something wrong with what someone said, articulate why it doesn't stand up to reason.
Something as unreasonable as excessively racist ideology shouldn't be hard to dismantle.. Any 6-7yo kid can see it's all fabrications.
I didn't say it mattered if it makes me sick. Also, what you just typed is an example of what you say is not furthering the discussion. Kind of hypocritical.
-
Something as unreasonable as excessively racist ideology shouldn't be hard to dismantle.. Any 6-7yo kid can see it's all fabrications.
Would you like to see the quotes from the guy in this thread that stated he would never hire a black guy? Would that be relevant to the thread, since that same guy claims he doesn't care what color a person's skin is? I think it would be relevant to some parts of this thread and it would shed some light on that person's statements.
-
In light of some of the recent clips I've seen of Obama's "spiritual leader"....and with regard the the possibility that this "all style, no substance" guy may become the next President of the United States of America......I was wondering...how long into his Presidency does he wait to petition for slave reparations?
The Hispanic majority won't let him!!!!!
AAAAAHHHHHHAAAAAHHHHHHAAAAAHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAA!
:lol
Lighten up a little guys!
-
I didn't say it mattered if it makes me sick. Also, what you just typed is an example of what you say is not furthering the discussion. Kind of hypocritical.
It was supposed to advance the discussion by leading you to explain why said "racist" was objectionable as related to the thread, in your opinion, rather than just saying he made your blood boil.. I'm not a hypocrit, I just won't get into the argument myself because it'll take way too long to prove my point of view, and that particular aspect (not hiring blacks etc) is off topic enough to derail the thread.
Quotes out of context won't be very constructive..
-
and that particular aspect (not hiring blacks etc) is off topic enough to derail the thread.
Quotes out of context won't be very constructive..
Well, I think it would be a good start in making that person be honest about what he has been posting here. He calls a guy a racist with nothing to back it up. I can back what I say up and it kind of makes his point moot ( no pun intended)
This thread was over three pages ago anyway. Nothing new has come up and it's now down to people bashing their heads against a wall.
-
I think what Nuke posted was in keeping with the direction this thread has taken, I don't think it was off topic, it's not like he posted about going to buy a car or something. Your post complaining about his post was more off topic then his OP ever was.
-
If you mean lazs, I pretty much entirely agree with him, as far as he or I can tell thru the net; which you'll agree is not the best medium to read people through. Nonetheless, the archetypal behavior he denounces is accurate and matches what I've experienced. In addition to that, I trust his perspective even more because of the fact that we both came from pretty much polar opposites. He started as a white bigot (by his own admission) and I started as a brown guy who waded thru tons of racist crap of all sorts.
There's another poster here that fits exactly what Lazs denounces, the same sort of BS that FX1 put up with and showed a video of a while back, the same sort of "counter-racist" racism that's so prevalent in the US. It's poison, and Lazs knows it very well because he's been there and done that. Who better to call it for what it is?
I don't know if Ledpig fits the bill, and arguably, a truth as transparent as what Lazs (among others) points out usualy gets through even the thickest skulls and denials.. It's like chlorine in the proverbial pool of bad ideas and misconceptions. It doesn't matter if you're black, or yellow, or whatever. It does tell a lot about you if you insist it does and pretend you deserve things you would deserve if only it were true... But it isn't.
I wouldn't hire a skinhead anymore than I'd hire an Al Sharpton or any guy whose dimwit trains of thought were restricted to totaly bogus misconceptions, whether they're redneckesque or froggy-esque.. Dimwits are equaly so, regardless of their race. Pretty common sense.
Sorry for rambling, I'm doing too many things at once.
And I didn't complain about his post. I was pointing out that it was as useful as calling shenanigans and stopping at that.
-
I wouldn't hire a skinhead anymore than I'd hire an Al Sharpton or any guy whose dimwit trains of thought were restricted to totaly bogus misconceptions, whether they're redneckesque or froggy-esque.. Dimwits are equaly so, regardless of their race. Pretty common sense.
We are talking about a guy that stated on these boards that he would never hire a black guy. He said that he would smile and act nice in the interview, then toss the resume in the trash after. I don't know how you could say that, then claim that that you don't care what color a person is.
Then he says he's not afraid of "them" and that he's "their worst nightmare" If he is not afraid, then I am sure he will come and post here again and explain why he won't hire blacks.
I think people like him have a lot of issues.
-
The Hispanic majority won't let him!!!!!
AAAAAHHHHHHAAAAAHHHHHHAAAAAHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAA!
:lol
Lighten up a little guys!
Too late. The lock 'n hasp will probably wind up on this one sooner or later.
-
So it's ok to note elements that tipify cultures, only if they've never been used derogatorily?
Where am i making note of elements that tipify cultures, where am i doing that? How did you get that? If anything i'm trying to slash them down with sarcasm and dry presumed agreement. I'm tired of people telling me what i'm saying around here. And when i tell them i'm not they don't believe me... :uhoh
I don't generally do it one way or the other in my personal life. I don't care.
When i come across a "check one of these" boxes i begrudgingly pick one. One day i wish we didn't have to pick any one of them. Thats why i made that black man statement, going "as if that really matters" ....to myself. Lasz took it to mean i was pulling some card or something.
I generally don't like people tipifying someone over something like that which is way i took issue with the first post.
Now if Barack Obama came out and said that, or if it came out that he was somehow funding an organization for reparations. Then go ahead make that assumption. Otherwise spare me.
Where is what i'm saying wrong?
-
Maybe he doesn't expect to see a black guy who's outgrown those bad habits show up at his desk... You won't say who you mean, but if you mean Lazs, I used to have my doubts too. And I've dealt with more than a few closet racists, trust me.
Some people are so fed up with drug addicts, from their experience, that they just refuse to deal with them, outright. Only if race is some sacred taboo, as opposed to what you seem to think (that it doesn't matter what color someone's skin is), can it not substitute for "drug addicts" in that sort of scenario.
-
Maybe he doesn't expect to see a black guy who's outgrown those bad habits show up at his desk... You won't say who you mean, but if you mean Lazs, I used to have my doubts too. And I've dealt with more than a few closet racists, trust me.
Some people are so fed up with drug addicts, from their experience, that they just refuse to deal with them, outright. Only if race is some sacred taboo, as opposed to what you seem to think (that it doesn't matter what color someone's skin is), can it not substitute for "drug addicts" in that sort of scenario.
So black guys have bad habits and do drugs? I can't believe what I am reading.
Ledpig, these are the kind of people that are calling you a racist.
-
You implied it was wrong to say that mexicans drive lowriders, etc. It's a fact that those sorts of archetypes did in fact originate from and probably could only have come from their respective cultures. It's a fact that only black culture yields black dimwits of the sort that grew up in black culture, just as it's a fact that only white french culture could yield a white french dimwit such as one that grew up in white french culture. It's not factual that every single white french corresponds to such a stereotype, but it is a fact that it's a significant pattern in said culture. This because many people never outgrow their native culture and its traditions, etc.
One of the reasons I don't ever like this discussions is that people rush to conclusions and get all outraged rather than argue things out. They cry that they're offended rather than point out the unreasonableness of someone's arguments.
-
We are talking about a guy that stated on these boards that he would never hire a black guy. He said that he would smile and act nice in the interview, then toss the resume in the trash after. I don't know how you could say that, then claim that that you don't care what color a person is.
Then he says he's not afraid of "them" and that he's "their worst nightmare" If he is not afraid, then I am sure he will come and post here again and explain why he won't hire blacks.
I think people like him have a lot of issues.
Nuke i for one don't really care what Lasz thinks. It is interesting to listen as it is interesting to go through the thoughts of a serial killer or politician. I don't mute him because i enjoy listening to his opinion, i enjoy being exposed to ideas that seem to be left field of mine to me. Sometimes i might learn something.
I do sometimes wonder how he never gets the stick from Skuzzy... i've seen some things, that look far worse than what i've seen other people do. Myself including, when i'm merely responding to his insurrection.
I don't however enjoy having words put in my mouth, people telling me what i mean and then going out and saying i think in said way..... I don't...... So i fire back, i speak back.
I'm merely defending myself.
-
Maybe he doesn't expect to see a black guy who's outgrown those bad habits show up at his desk.
Ok, do you mean that all black men have some kind of bad habits they need to grow out of? If so thats a pretty racist statement to be making.
-
Nuke i for one don't really care what Lasz thinks. It is interesting to listen as it is interesting to go through the thoughts of a serial killer or politician. I don't mute him because i enjoy listening to his opinion, i enjoy being exposed to ideas that seem to be left field of mine to me. Sometimes i might learn something.
I do sometimes wonder how he never gets the stick from Skuzzy... i've seen some things, that look far worse than what i've seen other people do. Myself including, when i'm merely responding to his insurrection.
I don't however enjoy having words put in my mouth, people telling me what i mean and then going out and saying i think in said way..... I don't...... So i fire back, i speak back.
I'm merely defending myself.
Yeah, Lazs does seem to get away with a bunch of stuff. Now after reading what Moot just said, I believe we have two racists here.
Hey Moot, if you were introduced to a Mexican, would it be appropriate to assume that they had a lowrider?
If a black guy came for a job, would you find it hard to believe that he didn't do drugs?
If you met someone from Guatemala, would you ask them what kind of leaf-blower they like to do their job? Would that be okay?
-
So black guys have bad habits and do drugs? I can't believe what I am reading.
Ledpig, these are the kind of people that are calling you a racist.
Are you saying that black people don't ever match that sort of lifestyle? Did I say that was the only lifestyle black people led? I do say that people let their morphology affect their reasoning, and I do say it's fallacious. I do think reason has zero anchors in race.
I do think you're jumping to conclusions NUKE. And that you're neglecting how much experience I have with many sides of racial conflicts.
The drug addict analogy was random. I had started typing out the following but stopped because it was tedious and pathetic:
Another analogy is my father. He's worked for decades now, like a bull. Day in, day out, he's gone all over the world and been held up, marooned in foreign places sometimes barely speaking the local language.. Anyway, he's gone from being born in a stone brick house in the middle of Venezuelan country side to being a pillar in a world leading microanalysis company.. yadda yadd.
My little brother is the opposite. He's irresponsible and burns cash like thermite does toilet paper. My father's gotten so sick and tired (litteraly) of it, that he's got zero tolerance, even an allergy to that sort of Paris Hilton-esque excentricity. It doesn't matter that my little brother likes fun too much for his own good.. The analogy here is that he now refuses to deal with anyone (as much as possible) who has the telltale symptoms of that affliction (sorry my english is getting rusty).
It's a fact that behavior such as my little brother's is no defendable. It's a fact that my father is justifiably intolerant of it, and it's understandable that he might go overboard with it because of how fed up with it he's gotten. False positives are a small price to pay, for him, to not ever have to deal with that sort of person again.
How's that?
And another thing that ought to be cleared up.. Racist can have at least two implied meanings. One stands for anything pertaining to race, the other is the "unequal" meaning. I'm not sure (can't remember anymore) if Ledpig is the former, but as far as I can tell he's not the latter.
NUKE,
those are loaded questions.. Read what I typed above. And calling me racist.. That's pretty funny :) I'm so un-racist, you probably are more racist than I am. You haven't lived and grown up in as many cultures as I have... Don't even try and make this that sort of weenie-swinging contest.
-
You implied it was wrong to say that mexicans drive lowriders, etc. It's a fact that those sorts of archetypes did in fact originate from and probably could only have come from their respective cultures. It's a fact that only black culture yields black dimwits of the sort that grew up in black culture, just as it's a fact that only white french culture could yield a white french dimwit such as one that grew up in white french culture. It's not factual that every single white french corresponds to such a stereotype, but it is a fact that it's a significant pattern in said culture. This because many people never outgrow their native culture and its traditions, etc.
One of the reasons I don't ever like this discussions is that people rush to conclusions and get all outraged rather than argue things out. They cry that they're offended rather than point out the unreasonableness of someone's arguments.
I choose to make the assumption after i meet the person. Not make the assumption before i meet the person.
What assumption do you have about me being black? Before i even said anything. All those generalizations that you brought up, that generally go with a certain culture. Do you think of them first before you would meet me or after you would?
Sure Hispanics drive lowriders, blacks do to. I've seen some suburban white teenage girls lowriding too. I don't think of all that before i meet Carlos though. I just say hey Carlos you drive a lowrider?.... cool. Carlos friend to me, might drive up in a pickup jacked up 8 feet off the ground, i don't know, and i leave it at that.
-
Ok, do you mean that all black men have some kind of bad habits they need to grow out of? If so thats a pretty racist statement to be making.
See my 09:06:01 PM post.
-
This thread is becoming useful again. We get to know what people really believe. It's good to know.
I know that whenever I meet a Chinese person, I usually ask them how their laundry business is going.
-
Making an assumption about someone based solely on what color or race they are is just ignorance. If your going to think a certain way about someone do it because of something they've done, or you know they've done. Every race has people who do drugs, drive low riders, or are stupid, so if your not gonna associate with someone, make sure it's because of them, not just based on what race they are.
-
I choose to make the assumption after i meet the person. Not make the assumption before i meet the person.
Ok... An assumption is the sort of thing you make when lacking enough evidence. It's like a guess. You might guess something about someone even after having met them, but in general you'd be guessing more before you met them, than after.
What assumption do you have about me being black?
I don't have any. Not about you specificaly. I do know that black people behave black, white white, etc. Are you going to deny that people of the world have cultures? Hello?? BET? Baguettes and croissant? Kisses on the cheeks in Paris as opposed to handshakes or those semi-bend-over hugs in the US? Are you denying that cultures are distinct?
Before i even said anything. All those generalizations that you brought up, that generally go with a certain culture. Do you think of them first before you would meet me or after you would?
I dunno, do you think that cultures never ever reflect on the constituants of said cultures?
Sure Hispanics drive lowriders, blacks do to. I've seen some suburban white teenage girls lowriding too. I don't think of all that before i meet Carlos though. I just say hey Carlos you drive a lowrider?.... cool. Carlos friend to me, might drive up in a pickup jacked up 8 feet off the ground, i don't know, and i leave it at that.
Strawman. You're saying that because some very vulgar stereotypes only happen in a small proportion of the population, that lesser degrees of those memes don't happen in the rest of the population. You're saying that if you took a black person in the US, and magicaly gave him or her a white person's body, that no one would notice.
If I do have an accusation, it's against people in the US, for having let the black/white divide and the growth of anti-black/white cultures on both sides. It's like watching a farm, it really is. The way blacks and whites treat each other is just eye popping.
As for Lazs, well, as bold and brash as he is, the points he makes are defendable. Two things: One, you should remember that you're in the US, where you're supposed to have exemplary appreciation for defending others' rights to differ with you. Two, it doesn't matter if he's being rude or if he tests your sensibilities, if he flaunts public conventions.. The point he makes is true.
I don't know about NEVER hiring blacks - please read the analogy I made above before you "stuff words in my mouth", but I do know that the whole victimizing act is taken to unbelieveable extremes in the US, on both sides of the black/white divide. The way I've read Lazs up to today, is that he just does away with that overgrown superfluous bloated mannerism, and with good reason: it's absolutely useless.
The only way out of that entrenchment is to just MOVE ON. To just GIVE UP the freakin outdated racial theories and just take people for exactly what they are. If that means someone who's stuck on stupid, then that's what he should get called for. But saying that there's no such thing as a black person that's dimwitted.. Please... I grew up in France and it was almost the exact same thing. It was OK to call french people born in pure white bread families and upbringing as being (rednecks), but it was taboo to call people who were brought up on the African equivalent (well, we can't say any such word, and I don't even mean the N word)...
-
Gosh, I thought slavery ended with the emancimation proclamation? What a bunch of racist crap here!
-
This thread is becoming useful again. We get to know what people really believe. It's good to know.
I know that whenever I meet a Chinese person, I usually ask them how their laundry business is going.
It just seems to me that you can't pass up an opportunity to call someone racist, regardless of whether they really are. You don't care to dig up the truth, only to have a hint of what lays beneath. That way you can make minimal efforts for maximum returns; maximum error in this case.
-
Making an assumption about someone based solely on what color or race they are is just ignorance. If your going to think a certain way about someone do it because of something they've done, or you know they've done. Every race has people who do drugs, drive low riders, or are stupid, so if your not gonna associate with someone, make sure it's because of them, not just based on what race they are.
You didn't read what I typed out did you... That's more or less what I was saying, only I didn't cheap out and just say "Hey I agree".
In fact, the only reason I took the time to type so much is that I think it's a real calamity that the same white/black cultural misunderstanding that's led the USA to where it is now, is happening all over again right here between Lazs and pretty much anyone who doesn't have the balls to stand apart from the crowd.
This is like the time (I forget who, some black dude. Oops, sorry, "african american") said the word niggardly to the press... It didn't matter that he was saying something sensible, only that it SOUNDED racist. Everyone got to scratch their hunt the witch itch.
-
It just seems to me that you can't pass up an opportunity to call someone racist, regardless of whether they really are.
I don't have a history of posts which call people racists. However, I think that someone who states that they would never hire a black guy is a racist.
-
You didn't read what I typed out did you... That's more or less what I was saying, only I didn't cheap out and just say "Hey I agree".
I wasn't saying what I posted was aimed at you, I was just posting my thoughts on the subject the conversation was in.
-
And damned be any context.
Sorry Trax, I might've gotten ahead of myself on that post. You have to be a bit more specific. You can't follow a conversation using "you" and "your" etc in reference to guy you're talking to, and then suddenly switch the meaning to "you" in general, and expect the other guy to read your mind.
And I'm done for now. I won't be around to respond to more guys not trying to understand the meaning of posts but merely fishing for excuses to call others racist or whatever.
-
Yeah I was just using you & your in a general sense of anybody reading it, just a misunderstanding.
-
See Rule #4, #5
-
See Rules #4, #5
Have you been able to become a productive member of society now that your a parolee, or do you still feel the stigma from society stereotyping you as a parolee? :D
-
See Rules #4, #5
-
See Rules #5
-
See Rule #4
-
The wrongs committed by slavery have been paid for by the men of the american civil war. It'll be a cold day in hell before I give someone money because they're black! Call me what ya will,but they still won't get money from this ole boy!
-
nuke.. you need to put up or shut up... please link the thread where I said I would not hire a black guy. I think the context needs to be brought out. I think that hiring a whiny, chip on his shoulder "you owe me" negro is simply a bad idea.. if you can avoid having one of the thin skinned problems around you are gonna be much better off.. why buy trouble? why be a martyr? I will leave that to you and the PC crowd. good luck with that.. I am sure that they will love you for it....at least a threads worth.
Go ahead.. link the thread.. it will just prove what I already know.. you can't understand what you read.
the first person to play the race card and call racist was not me in this thread and I quote....
"Boy a topic like this gets the closet racists, to come out like ants being drawn out and getting stuck in mollases.
Notice most of them are conservatives..... "
Now go ahead nuke.. tell me again who was the first..
As for stereotypes? We just finished a "holiday" that pretty much called every person of Irish decent a drunk.
I would not have a mexican girlfriend if her people were half as thin skinned as some of the women on this board.
She likes to watch home improvement shows... there will be the obligatory landscape segment.. I say "see the guy with the clipboard? he looks just like me.. Now, see the guys digging the holes?"
She stereotypes my warlike and drunken stuborn ancestry.
I take each and every person as an individual.. as moot points out.. I have known real bigotry and how useless it is. This reverse racism and special treatment stuff just feels exactly like the stuff I used to wallow in. I don't expect the chip on his shoulder new racist to understand this or the PC butt smootcher.. I do find it refreshing to find people like my girlfriend and moot and millions of others who aren't playing this game..
lazs
-
Some years ago at function I attended at my daughter's school the principle made a statement to the assembly that part of the schools mission was to, and I paraphrase, " celebrate diversity and strive for blind equality". When I commented that she had served herself a pretty complex challenge she looked at me cow eyed and said " I don't know about that, it seems to me they go hand in hand". Understand that she was administering a school for "gifted" students.
Granted, this was a female person of color. I really expected nothing less but I was disappointed that even my wife at the time didn't divine the fundamental contradiction in that statement.
The point is that many people seem to have the tendency to latch on to buzz words and co-opt their meaning without really thinking about what they are saying.
"Racist" is another. To employ the terms "racism", "prejudice", and "bigotry", as the same concept is to my way of thinking extremely simple minded. On St' Pat's day I celebrate. Being partially Irish (I can still pass for white) I embrace the characterizations that the Irish hold as typical of their heritage. Poetry, Red headed girls, easy smiles, apocalyptic inebriation, the whole deal. At the feast of St. Joe we embrace the culture of our neighbors of Italian decent. To this day calling my friend Tony C. a Mick will get you thrown out of his house. He's as stereotypically dago as they come and he'll be the first to tell you. He's proud of it. Are we racists? Yes. We acknowledge different cultures and have the presence of mind to perceive that different cultures have different attributes.
Prejudice and bigotry have distinct definitions also. Not mutually exclusive but by no means synonymous. They are concepts that define much if not most of human history. As such I think it's fair to say they are concepts that are integral to humanity. Certainly more so than charity and benevolence. Healthy or not, I believe these traits are common to all of us to varying degrees. To me, hypocrisy is far more unwholesome.
-
thruster.. you seem dangerously close to not embracing PC ideals of diversity and equality.
I agree with what you have said tho. Words do mean something. I believe that I do know the meaning of racist and most of what passes for racism today is not. I believe that being stuck in the PC version fosters real racism.
mostly.. no one likes to be around a whiner or a racist. To admit that does not make anyone a bigot.
lazs
-
"PC" fosters more ignorance than racism ever could.
what could be more unamerican...or more dangerous...than a society adopting an unofficial mandate that calls for "intentionally hiding, disregarding, or even modifying the actual truth in order to protect a person or group of people's feelings"
-
nuke.. you need to put up or shut up... please link the thread where I said I would not hire a black guy.
I think the context needs to be brought out. I think that hiring a whiny, chip on his shoulder "you owe me" negro is simply a bad idea.. if you can avoid having one of the thin skinned problems around you are gonna be much better off.. why buy trouble? why be a martyr? I will leave that to you and the PC crowd. good luck with that.. I am sure that they will love you for it....at least a threads worth.
So...in the same post you deny saying you wouldn't hire a black guy...and then go on to state WHY you wouldn't hire a black guy.
lol
-
and then go on to state WHY you wouldn't hire a WHINEY black guy.
fixed.
I'm a small business owner inclined to agree. Whining & owe me attitudes are useless. Black, white, red, yellow, green, purple. All that matters is you produce. Angry, owe-me people produce less than happy, motivated people. Pretty simple.
-
So...in the same post you deny saying you wouldn't hire a black guy...and then go on to state WHY you wouldn't hire a black guy.
lol
I don't blame him on that. Why would you hire one of those folks that acts and feels that way, better to steer clear.
Now if Lasz would do the same if it was a white guy acting the same way... i have no problem with what he's saying.
I think that is what he's saying.
-
You *think* that is what he is saying huh?
I see.
How does one tell if someone is whiney? You can't...so instead lazs avoids all black people as much as possible. I think THAT is what he is saying.
-
This is done.