We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Wednesday, June 26. 2013
Leisure College, USA: The Decline in Student Study Time
Russians amused by Obama's metrosexuality:
They can't believe their luck
SCOTUS Ruling Is MASSIVE WIN for Conservatives – Will Make It Hard For Democrats to Cheat
Affirmative action forever
Benghazi: Where Was the President?
'Pre-K For All' A Federal Takeover Of Family Duty
What is "family"? It takes a village of government, unionized child care workers
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Looking at the links this morning, and indeed, many mornings I'm struck by one central theme: everything the government gets their paws on sooner or later turns to crap, except maybe for the military. Will anything be left intact when Obama and his merry band of bums leave office? The economy, medical care, alliances, international stability and, now, diversion programs for at-risk people in some out of the way Louisiana parish, all sacrificed on the Progressive alter..
No, they're working over the military. It ain't what it useta be.
Bird Dog: Obama lies in his war on coal.
Not sure what constitutes the lie.
John Hinderaker: But it isn’t true that the Earth has warmed in recent years, as we noted here:
There's something wrong with that graph. Balloons don't measure surface temperature for one. And the graph clearly shows warming, contrary to Hinderaker's statement. In any case, "The 12 warmest years in recorded history have all come in the last 15 years" is an accurate statement.
We know how earth surface temperatures are recorded - with weather stations that near A/C exhaust, airport taxi ways, and other "weather neutral" places. When people started expose the poor placement of those stations, they made their location secret.
Not only that, but changes in instrumentation and methods over the years makes it difficult to extract accurate data. Nevertheless, many studies have confirmed the basic findings. For instance,
Rohde et al, A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011, Geoinfor Geostat 2013.
Left Lives in the Past on Voting Rights--
Democrats upset that the SCOTUS recognizes the South is no longer like it was when Democrats ran it 40 years ago. Where's their "hope and change"?
Now, let's talk about Philadelphia where men have been filmed standing at the entrance of polling stations with weapons. Oh, and which party controls Philadelphia?
Now lets talk about the gerrymandering of congressional districts to make safe Democrat and Black districts. This is not only unconstitutional but it flies in the face of the intent of the constitution in that it intentionally denies large numbers of people their vote. With computers it would be a simple matter to divide a state into congressional districts using straight lines and without regard to race or party and let the chips fall where they may.
While there is no perfect mathematical system, districts should be drawn to reflect natural populations, not gerrymandered for political purposes.
Texas had proposed a redistricting that was bent all out of shape to reduce minority representation. It was struck down by the courts under the Civil Rights Act, but that decision is now moot.
How does one determine what is a 'natural population'?
Just stay with county and/or city jurisdictions?
How could you possible know about one example where you believe the state tried to Gerrymander to prevent a black district and not know about the 100 Gerrymandered districts created to make black and hispanic districts. Could you be that blind?
What has natural populations to do with this? Draw vertical and horizontal lines across the state that create districts with approximately the same number of people and there you have it. They already split cities and counties and not for the purpose of Gerrymandering. Just divide up the state using a simple algorithm based on the numbers of people and addresses within the state.
GoneWithTheWind: What has natural populations to do with this? Draw vertical and horizontal lines across the state that create districts with approximately the same number of people and there you have it.
There's no perfect mathematical method, just as there is no perfect electoral system, but we agree with your sentiment that the process should be non-partisan. Some states have such a system.
"no perfect mathematical system"? You don't need a perfect system. A child could do this. A spread sheet could do this. I could write you a computer program today to do this.
As for the states that are "non-partisan" in their drawing of the district lines you would have to be intentionally blind to not see the partisan efforts that create the congressional districts. They only claim to be non-partisan.
GoneWithTheWind: "no perfect mathematical system"? You don't need a perfect system. A child could do this. A spread sheet could do this. I could write you a computer program today to do this.
You agree there is no perfect system. There is no best system either. There may be good enough, though. The problem is that in order to equalize district populations, it may be necessary to cut across neighborhoods, and many such systems tend to dilute minority representation, always a problem in majoritarian systems.
This is similar to the problem of electoral systems. There is no perfect or even best system. All systems can lead to perverse results, such as where a less popular candidate can win over a more popular candidate.
"...such systems tend to dilute minority representation".
And finally we get to YOUR agenda. One person one vote. Not special districts for minorities.
GoneWithTheWind: One person one vote.
In the U.S., a person in Wyoming has sixty times the influence of someone in California in the Senate, and 3½ the influence in the Electoral College which chooses the president.
Nor is majoritarianism the only type of electoral system. There are other systems, such as proportional representation, that more accurately reflect various groups. There's no system that doesn't have inherent problems, and no system that always reflects the will of the people. Try to think about it, rather than simply reacting.
"proportional representation" equals discrimination. Who in their right mind would seriously suggest this as a way to govern a democracy?
Every state gets two senators. What could be more fair then that? Then the second house of congress is based on population within a state. I honestly doubt we could come up with a better system. Wait! I do have a change that I think would make it more fair; each representative is elected by a statewide vote. Now that would make our system even better.
GoneWithTheWind: "proportional representation" equals discrimination.
Huh? That's a very odd statement. If 10% of the population is black, then how is having 10% representation equal to discrimination?
A typical method, consistent with democratic principles, would be to have a statewide vote then divide the representation according to the vote.
GoneWithTheWind: Every state gets two senators. What could be more fair then that?
If you think that someone in Montana should have 20x the political power in the Senate as someone in New York, then it's perfectly fair.
Have you actually thought through your position?
If 10% of the population is black and they all have a right to one vote whyt would you need some kind of quota system based on race? THAT is racist. Why shouldn't black votes for white candidates count?
No matter how you torture the math oneone, no matter in which state they live in, has two senators from his state (except Oregon and New York because Oregon's Senator Wyden lives in New York). So you can divide the population by the number of senators if that gets you the numbers you need to prove a point but the bottom line is every state has two senators and THAT is fair. However if you believe Montana is getting more representation then move to Montana.
GoneWithTheWind: If 10% of the population is black and they all have a right to one vote whyt would you need some kind of quota system based on race? THAT is racist.
It doesn't have to be racist. For instance, drawing districts around natural neighborhoods will often result in minority representation. Another way, used in many places, is proportional representation. For instance, if there are ten allotted representatives for an area, the top ten vote getters become the ten representatives. But, as we noted above, there is no perfect system. That's why democracy is always a compromise.
GoneWithTheWind: Why shouldn't black votes for white candidates count?
They certainly should and do. However, when minorities, who often have their own political requirements, are consciously marginalized by gerrymandering, then their views may not be being represented.
GoneWithTheWind: However if you believe Montana is getting more representation then move to Montana.
Montana is getting the same representation—as a state, but Montanans have many times the influence in the Senate or Electoral College as New Yorkers. It's a vestige of the original Constitution, a compromise that allowed the formation of a strong federal system. And stability has its own virtues.
You're the one who advocated one person one vote, not one state one vote. Surely you don't believe in naïve majoritarianism, do you?
Utter and complete, tho not at all uncharacteristic, mischaracterization.
Texas was a one party state from reconstruction until GOP elected a governor almost exactly 100 years later.
What you call an attack on the voting rights of minorities was part of a long twilight struggle to undo some of the accretion of rules results from the Democrat party abuse of power throughout that long, low, dishonest Texas political century.
buddy larsen: What you call an attack on the voting rights of minorities was part of a long twilight struggle to undo some of the accretion of rules results from the Democrat party abuse of power throughout that long, low, dishonest Texas political century.
The Republican Texas redistricting plan is clear gerrymandering.
--did i say different? What would be clear (if you would look before you leap) is that the case was re the re-gerrymandering of already intensively gerrymandered lines. If that's such a sin, why didn't you say something about the pre-re-gerrymandering? Oh, it was ok before? Why? Party have anything to do with the conditional state of your political ethics?
Gerrymandering in intrinsically corrupt, and redistricting should be done in a non-partisan manner. However, gerrymandering to reduce minority representation is especially heinous.
What about redistricting to change a minority to a majority? That's not heinous? What about when it'sd done on the basis os skin color, even though that scoffs the very basis of election law?
I don't know why i bother with you --you substitute high-sounding platitudes for any actual rigor in your analyses. It's like wiping your butt with a wagon wheel --there's no end to it.
buddy larsen: What about redistricting to change a minority to a majority?
When there are large neighborhoods of people, then it is reasonable to include them in a district rather than split them in order to dilute their political power. There no perfect system for drawing political districts, or for any electoral system. Minority rights have to be protected for democracy to function. Using the redistricting process to dilute minority representation is pernicious, especially in a region just recovering from centuries of oppression.
It would be better to take GoneWithTheWind's suggestion, and make the process non-partisan.
Unfortunately hitting that "Reset Button" would need a return to at least 2006.
Robert Stacy McCain: Where Was the President?
Glad that mystery is solved.
Once again the Z-borg is caught in another of his crude deceptions. Funny there is no time stamp on that picture to go along with the date stamp. Funny, there is no EXIF information attached to the photo so the TIME it was shot could be determined. I looked with various software I have and found nada, zip, bubkis.
Thus, for all we know the photo was taken in the late afternoon or early evening. Judging by the several bright patches I see in the background, which could be reflections of daylight that's coming through the windows of the office, I think the picture was possibly taken in the late afternoon. Now as far as I know, nobody is disputing whether or not President * was updated early on in the day or even in a phone call from SOS Clinton at 10 pm. The question is: where was he later on in the evening after his conversation with Hillary?
I've said it before, I'll say it again: while his Ambassador was being killed, President Zzzzzzzzz was under the bedcovers getting some snooze time in preparation for his fund raising trip the next day. That's where he was. There's no mystery.
Come on, Coop! Don't tell me you don't believe the government - especially THIS one!
“Oh, you hate your job? Why didn't you say so? There's a support group for that. It's called EVERYBODY, and they meet at the bar.”
I am so tired of hearing the college graduates in "jobs their over-qualified for" lament. College and job qualifications have a very loose relationship, especially if you weren't in one of those, dare I say it, "vocational" majors, like engineering or accounting. And if you were in the humanities, well, you might be qualified to teach in the humanities, but you certainly don't have any specific job qualifications outside the university.
This is not to say that you might not in the course of your "studies" picked up a few odd skills, such as writing coherent paragraphs, lab skills, the ability to manipulate statistics, etc, that will give you a leg up against the qualifications needed for many jobs. You don't need to attend a university to learn those skills, however. So, exactly what has the student who matriculated at a fine institution of "higher" learning become over-qualified to do? Or should we say, "too good" to do?
We should note, that if a person, "Studied while others were sleeping; prepared while others were playing; and dreamed while others were wishing," then they may learn what it takes to be successful in a job faster than those who don't have the benefit of a college degree and perhaps even advance their work beyond that expected by their employer, but that is called success and it isn't something you "qualify" for by attending the university. It is something you build, perhaps on a foundation laid by attending the university, perhaps by hard work in spite of your university "education".
A man learns more about business in the first six months after his graduation than he does in his whole four years of college. But-and here is the "practical" result of his college work-he learns far more in those six months than if he had not gone to college. He has been trained to learn, and that, to all intents and purposes, is all the training he has received. To say that he has been trained to think is to say essentially that he has been trained to learn, but remember that it is impossible to teach a man to think. The power to think must be inherently his. All that the teacher can do is help him learn to order his thoughts-such as they are.
All that the teacher can do is help him learn to order his thoughts-such as they are.
That would good enough and sufficient, that would be downright fabulous if you could reasonably count on College to help a kid master his own thoughts. A nation, a civilization could go very far with just that.
Oh well. Today most colleges are just finishing schools for cultivated, self-important uselessness.
SCOTUS: Well, Gosh, if'n the Libs and Lefties are so happy with the laws from 40 years ago, let's go back to before gay marriage!
Yes, we know that college students are graduating with a smaller amount of academic accomplishment under their belt! What I love to see is when someone comes in and offers a diploma from what I call "Beach Front colleges". You know the private schools that have been created in an effort to support the purchase of a beautiful piece of real estate. Usually the investor/president lives on the property somewhere with his 3r or 4th wife. They offer "distance education" with some sort of once a year on site lectures. Here's how it works. I wanna be an academic (good pay, good hours, little responsibility). I live four miles away from a major research university, but "they are not innovative enough to support my personal interests in . . ."
Therefore, I have to sign up for a "distance education" degree. Once a year I am required to go to the beach and engage with my professors and other students (who are also way ahead of their professors working at the schools in their neighborhoods). During this week, we will meet in a round table discussion and discuss our shared interest in the future, in sustainability, in leadership, etc. . . . We will probably have a sexual fling with another student/professor, we will walk on the beach, etc. At the end of the week we will probably have listened to maybe four hours of formal lecture. We will go home and "study at our own pace". At the end of two years, we will write a thesis which is on a par with what used to be qualified as a large "book report", not a true research document, because Gosh knows we haven't really been taught the difference of primary, or secondary resources, and we really haven't been interested in reading what the "past" experts had discovered. Now at the end of two years, we will have had two weeks of enlightened paid vacation, and we will have spent a couple of hours a week reading books from the NY Times current book list. We will now be rewarded with "a doctorate" from "Beach Front Institution". Said, Beach Front Institution becoming better known for the many "big names" it has graduated. Names from minority groups, such as a polltical activist from Northern Burma, or the African/American daughter of a famous African/American politico. How about the too wealthy sons and daughters from famous Jewish families. Whoever they are they most certainly are the elite few children who were born into this world already smarter than any expert in a chosen field. And, besides they need to show some credentials on their resume. They don't go to real schools because they are arrogant, and lazy! But, don't count on the accrediting agencies to deny accreditation. Those folks like a week on the beach also, you know when there are no classes and all those empty rooms! Of course 20 years down the road when the real estate is paid for, the original owner does not renew the lease for "Beach Front College", so whoever is now running the school and whoever the students are now have to move their learning experience to some other facility. Ain't life sweet!
If you see anyone applying for a job with "a doctorate", be sure that the "institution" is a large, major player in that particular specialty!
--agree with GWtW. If a grid won't fit, voting rights ain't sh*t.
Climate! See ''W'' in the child's guide to govt regs.
If the Continental Army (and what a stroke of branding genius THAT name was!) had known in 1776 that the 2013 American president would be making major speeches about the nation's need to alter the climate, i seriously doubt it would've been interested in taking to the rowboats to cross the icy Delaware on that Christmas night.
buddy larsen: If the Continental Army (and what a stroke of branding genius THAT name was!) had known in 1776 that the 2013 American president would be making major speeches about the nation's need to alter the climate, i seriously doubt it would've been interested in taking to the rowboats to cross the icy Delaware on that Christmas night.
"I actually think on a scale of things our 'founders foresaw,' - 'speech about climate change' would take a backseat to 'black president.'"
The used the phrase "all men are created equal". Perhaps in their time only an aspiration but it certainly wasn't designed to cement the definition of their time. Since then, not only have blacks been incorporated into the definition of men, but so have women.
Perfection has not been achieved and probably will never be, but the nobility is in the struggle for and the aspiration to the higher ideal.
You really need to stop letting the lack of perfection blind you to what has been achieved and the steps to move humanity a little closer.
Argue as you may whether the idea of that all men are created equal would arise elsewhere in the world, at some point in time, the fact is, it was articulated and put on the path by our, the American, forefathers. Argue that equality for blacks and women did not cross their minds, but the fact is, such equality is what came from what they wrought.
Really. Your comment doesn't address the point. The Founders would be surprised by a lot of things.
JKB: Argue as you may whether the idea of that all men are created equal would arise elsewhere in the world, at some point in time, the fact is, it was articulated and put on the path by our, the American, forefathers.
The notion of political equality predates the American founders.
You mean a half black President who shares absolutely no common background to the rest of the African-American population who was raised in a white family as a culturally white person who's dad was an educated African elite? That black President?
The first Patriot killed in what became the war was a black freedman, at the Boston Massacre in 1770:
"Two major sources of eyewitness testimony about the Boston Massacre, both published in 1770, did not refer to Attucks as a "Negro," or "black" man; ..." sez the blurb.
Washington himself said that without his foreman running the farm, he'd never have been able to take leave and fight the war. In fact a great many of the long wartime congress were able to attend and keep congress in the war in real time, because of ''the peculiar institution''.
So the symbolism applied to the meritocracy would not have surprised the Founders. The fact that a cause they were up to trading their lives for could come to celebrate its success by electing cynical and painfully obvious rent-seekers to sell such indulgent anachronistic frivolity is what perhaps would have surprised them.
It's rather bizarre that people would argue that the Founders would not be surprised to see a black president, requiring as it does an absolute majority of the electoral college.
Zach, you need to apply some basic facts to the tempo and reliability of 18th century communications and the existential value of administrative continuity, before you salvo the battery of left-wing projectionist deconstruction.
Of all the words of tongue and pen
bandied by who what where why and when
that 95 to 5 the ratio has been
the percent by which leftist is greater than
(oops, posted wrong ruff --poet, you know)
Of all the words of tongue and pen
bandied on 'race' by who why and when
that 95 to 5 the ratio has been
from left to right, with left greater than
Not tryin' 2 confuse our "Resident Troll" R U?
He won't understand Ur humour...even with a "meeting of his minds".
I think you are wrong Zac. I think the founding fathers would approve of the end of slavery and equal rights. But I think what they would consider a big deal about Obama is that he was not a natural born U.S. citizen AND THAT the media they thought would rise to protect the constitution instead rose to hide Obama's past. To this day we do not know where he was born. The ONLY evidence (and there is quite a bit of it) points to a Kenyan birth and a very poorly counterfeited attempt to register him as born in Hawaii. To this day we don't even know if Obama even attended the colleges he supposedly graduated from. We do know that no one including some professors who would have been his teachers ever sawe him in classes or at the school. There is so much more we do not know about Obama and the press didn't simply lack and interest and inquisitiveness they went to great lengths to hide Obama's past and ridicule anyone who wanted to look at Obama's past. THAT would make the founding fathers turn over in their graves.
GoneWithTheWind: I think the founding fathers would approve of the end of slavery and equal rights.
Some would have approved ending slavery, but clearly some wouldn't, or slavery wouldn't have persisted, even leading to Civil War.
GoneWithTheWind: But I think what they would consider a big deal about Obama is that he was not a natural born U.S. citizen ...
Oh gee whiz. Of course he is. That's just a proxy for race.
"... they went to great lengths to hide Obama's past and ridicule anyone who wanted to look at Obama's past."
"Oh gee whiz. Of course he is. That's just a proxy for race."
Walked right into that one, didn't ya, old boy? And incidentally, while at the game of assigning base motives to ideological opponents, what is race a proxy for?
The Golden Rule?
''Some would have approved ending slavery, but clearly some wouldn't, or slavery wouldn't have persisted, even leading to Civil War.''
So, while you've been characterizing 'the founding fathers', you actually meant only 'some' of them?
--gotta watch them reductios, Zach, lest they spill by inference into them climate expert opinions you likewise characterize.
buddy larsen: Walked right into that one
You confused two separate statements. We were responding to the ridiculous claim that Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States.
buddy larsen: So, while you've been characterizing 'the founding fathers', you actually meant only 'some' of them?
You are confusing two separate statements. Many founders saw the end of slavery, but it's hard to imagine most any of the founders not being surprised by a black president. Indeed, it surprised many people in the 21st century. Some people still can't believe it, so they have to make up reasons why Obama isn't really the president; such as he is not an American.
--i'll stand on my statements --you can dissemble all you want, the words are right there, folks can see them.
Have you noticed how often you're using the word 'ridiculous' to describe statements against the authenticity of the Obama CV vetting?
'Ridiculous' --comes straight from Alinsky --''A counter-argument is not necessary, just ridicule your opponent's argument''.
buddy larsen: the words are right there, folks can see them.
Yes, they can. The "founders surprised" refers to black president.
.. Zachriel: "I actually think on a scale of things our 'founders foresaw,' - 'speech about climate change' would take a backseat to 'black president.'"
.. Zachriel: It's rather bizarre that people would argue that the Founders would not be surprised
The "some of the founders" referred to their views towards ending slavery.
.. Zachriel: Some would have approved ending slavery, but clearly some wouldn't, or slavery wouldn't have persisted, even leading to Civil War.
Not that hard to follow.
buddy larsen: Have you noticed how often you're using the word 'ridiculous' to describe statements against the authenticity of the Obama CV vetting?
Precisely once in any context on this thread, in reference to the claim that Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and even then, not in response to the claimant.
Slavery was foisted upon this country before it was a country. Slavery began long before the founding fathers created this country and continued for a couple hundred years before this country was founded. I equate slavery in this country to the drug trade in that it was brought here by foriegners and carried out against the will of the people and harmed the honest citizens and only benefitted those who were selling. The Dutch and Portuguese sea captains brought black slaves to the new world not the founding fathers. By the time the found fathers created a government it was impossible to ignore or fix the slavery issue. It is also worth pointing out that slavery was endemic throughout the world in all of the previous history. Slavery was NOT something that began in the U.S. On the contrary slavery was something that was ended in the U.S. and the rest of the world followed our lead. Except for muslim controlled Africa where it still exists. Slavery during the last 1500 years was mostly driven by blacks and muslims and mostly in Africa and the Middle East. By the hieght of slavery in the U.S. there were more white slaves in Africa then there were black slaves in the U.S.
GoneWithTheWind: Slavery was foisted upon this country before it was a country
Many people in America, before and after the revolution, including many of the founders, supported slavery as an institution wholeheartedly.
Many people did support slavery. In fact slavery was pretty much a norm for the preceeding 100,000 years of human history. I fail to see the point or how that in any way refutes my statement that slavery was foisted upon this country by foriegners who made money trading slaves from muslims. The more important point I made you choose to ignore which was that it was the U.S. that threw out slavery as a accepted legal institution and it was the rest of the world that followed our lead on that. It was the founding fathers who set this up in the constitution.
GoneWithTheWind: I fail to see the point or how that in any way refutes my statement that slavery was foisted upon this country by foriegners who made money trading slaves from muslims.
We weren't addressing that point, but it's obvious that slavery was foisted on America, but that America took on slaves willingly. You act like southerner slaveowners were forced into it.
Your claim was the founding fathers would approve of the end of slavery and equal rights. Clearly some would have, but just as clearly some wouldn't have.
Slavery was foisted upon us. 95% of Americans prior to 1965 never owned slaves. 99.9999% of americans never brought slaves into this country. They were brough in by foreign ship captains and sold on the street. The comparison with illegal drugs is astounding. Illegali drugs and the negative results of illegal drugs is foisted upon us all. I have never so much as inhaled and I have to pay the price of illegal drugs. 80% of violent crimes including murder are directly related to illegal drugs and a higher percentage of robbery and theft is related to illegal drugs. That is what "foisted" means. I don't want it, most Americans don't want it but the Mexican cartel keeps bring it in. So yes slavery was foisted upon us and most of it happened before we even had a country.
GoneWithTheWind: Slavery was foisted upon us.
Americans were complicit in slavery. There's just no denying that basic historical fact.
GoneWithTheWind: 95% of Americans prior to 1965 never owned slaves.
Well, as slavery was outlawed by constitutional amendment in 1865, a century before, that would be correct. However, the southern states were complicit in a regime of oppression during the succeeding century.
GoneWithTheWind: The comparison with illegal drugs is astounding.
Except that slavery was legal in many U.S. states. Seriously, you're saying the Americans were not complicit even as they passed laws allowing the ownership of slaves. This should give you some idea as to the involvement of Americans in slavery:
The Civil War was about slavery.
Mississippi Declaration of Causes of Secession: Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery.
Texas created perversion of the original Declaration of Independence.
Texas Declaration of Causes of Secession: 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.
It's about white supremacy.
Speech of Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens: Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition.
95% of Americans were NOT complicit in slavery and that is the whole point. That would be like saying that Americans are complicit in robbing banks because some Americans rob banks.
Obviously I meant 1865, clearly typing in the light of my TV leads to errors.
The civil war was indeed about slavery but the slave owners of the South were very clever and couched the arguement in a way that it became states rights and those damned yankees against us good old boys. 99% of the Southerners who fought and died in the civil war did not own slaves. They were for the most part as poor and over worked as slaves themselves. But never the less the war was for the most part about slavery and this was the majority of the U.S. declaring they wanted no part of slavery anymore.
Your problem, as demonstrated by trying to prove this was all about "white supremacy" is that you are at heart a racist and need to in order to support your racist theories, paint all whites as racist. I have no doubt, especially in the 1800's that you could find someone to quote who voiced a white supremacist attitude. Just as today you can find on TV and the internet people who will express a black supremacist attitude. One can assume that in 100 years humans will progress and think that calling someone a "creepy ass cracker" is racist and unacceptable. Probably they will refer to this as the "C" word. Should they then go back in history and destroy the lives of these people and ascribe beliefs to them based on the new standard of that day???
GoneWithTheWind: 95% of Americans were NOT complicit in slavery and that is the whole point. That would be like saying that Americans are complicit in robbing banks because some Americans rob banks.
Majorities in southern states continued to elect representatives who supported slavery, who legislated the very existence of slavery.
GoneWithTheWind: 99% of the Southerners who fought and died in the civil war did not own slaves.
According to the 1860 census, 25% of white southern families owned slaves, 50% in South Carolina and Mississippi.
GoneWithTheWind: Your problem, as demonstrated by trying to prove this was all about "white supremacy" is that you are at heart a racist and need to in order to support your racist theories, paint all whites as racist.
We quoted the declared causes of secession. Not all whites are racist, but most people struggle with understanding one another. Cultural, religious and racial difference just make that struggle more difficult.
GoneWithTheWind: I have no doubt, especially in the 1800's that you could find someone to quote who voiced a white supremacist attitude.
We didn't quote "someone", but the declared causes of secession, passed with strong support in the elected legislatures of southern states.
GoneWithTheWind: Should they then go back in history and destroy the lives of these people and ascribe beliefs to them based on the new standard of that day???
You made the claim that Americans were not complicit in slavery. That's simply not the case. Despite the efforts of many Americans, slavery was the original sin of founding.
The "big deal about Obama is that he was not a natural born U.S. citizen".
There are so many things you could have said in response. You could have attempted to refute my claim that there was no evidence of his being born in Hawaii or that the actual evidence of his being born in Kenya was simply wrong. You could have said that Obama's own words that implied he was a foriegner and not a citizen were mistakes of his youth or something. But you didn't! You fell back on the race card. Zac, that is what people do when they have nothing! You can't logically and with proof refute my statement that he is not a naturally born U.S. citizen so you must insert race and try to obfiscate. Thank you! As one of Obama's supporters/apoligists it is good that recognize you cannot prove that Obama is a citizen. Obama has a long history with the communist in America who groomed him for politics. His supporters and co-conspirators are communist many of them with direct relationships with the Soviet Union both before it fell and since. Obama is the true Manchurian candidate. Anyone with two brain cells can see this. But like so much in American politics if the big media doesn't say it's so then it isn't so. Time will tell. Once Obama has done his damage and moves on to collect millions and millions from foriegn countries and American communists for his work on their behalf (like Clinton has) then the need to keep all this hidden will no longer be enough to prevent it from becoming front page news. What will you say then?
Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya. His aunt was there and saw the birth. His Hawaiian birth certificate has been proven to be a forgery. His SS number belongs to a man who died in Hawaii (and who's information was available to Obama's grandmother in her job working for Hawaii). The evidence to prove he was not born in Hawaii is huge and the evidence to prove he was born in Hawaii doesn't exist. Not a single scrap of proof of his birth in Hawaii. The ONLY evidence of his birth is in Kenya.
GoneWithTheWind: Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya. His aunt was there and saw the birth. His Hawaiian birth certificate has been proven to be a forgery. His SS number belongs to a man who died in Hawaii (and who's information was available to Obama's grandmother in her job working for Hawaii). The evidence to prove he was not born in Hawaii is huge and the evidence to prove he was born in Hawaii doesn't exist. Not a single scrap of proof of his birth in Hawaii. The ONLY evidence of his birth is in Kenya.
Regarding the birth notice in the newspaper: You are aware that all you had to do then was call the paper and tell them what you wanted them to print. So what does it prove??? But wait! It does indeed prove something. The address given was bogus, made up, a lie. Why? Why, if his mother lived in Hawaii would she need to make up an address? This all goes back to my point that there is ZERO evidence of his birth in Hawaii and everything put out there is provably false. The ONLY evidence of his birth comes from Kenya.
Thank you zac. What's next? You want to cite his phony birth certificate? What about his draft card? Oh, that's right he is keeping that secret. Why? Why does he spend so much money keeping his past secret? Why did he use the SS of a dead man? Why doesn't he release he actual birth certificate? Why is it that everything that has been released by him and others has been proven to be phony?
GoneWithTheWind: The address given was bogus, made up, a lie.
It's where her parents lived.
But sure. They put the notice in the newspaper so that their mixed race son named "Barack Hussein Obama" could one day become president. Great plan.
That would be an absurd conclusion. No, his grandparents and maybe his mother too, put his name in the paper so that he could have the benefits fo American citizenship. Everyone in the world knows of the benefits of American citizenship, that's why women from China fly into this country to have a babay and women from Mexico cross the border before they pop out the anchor baby. Clearly this was known to you hence the need to make an absurd statement to try to avoid the obvious.
Well, it's a moot point because Obama was born in Hawaii, and was twice elected president.
GoneWithTheWind: His aunt was there and saw the birth.
Um, no she didn't.
It would appear my memory of the story was wrong. I looked it up and appearently it was Obama's paternal grandmother who was present at his birth in Kenya.
Yeah right and Clinton never had sex with that woman. The truth will set you free. If you stick with this left wing rationalization you will be a slave to the radical let's lies.
I won't convince you. I'm not even trying to convince you. It will come out after Obama has left office and the media no longer needs to cover for him. Then some pulitzer prize seeking investigative reporter will suddenly discover the obvious. Patience zac...
GoneWithTheWind: I won't convince you.
If you follow the links you would discover that your sources have misled you. The words of Obama's paternal grandmother were consciously distorted. This should give you pause.
I did indeed follow the link and I discoverewd that Solon.com refuted Obama's grandmother and has set up a plausably deniable excuse. What a suprise I cannot tell you how suprised I was that Solon came up with this!! But the truth is that Obama's grandmother proudly proclaimed that she was poresent at her grandson's birth UNTIL someone got to her and after that her comments and others conveniently became less incriminating. That alone should give you pause! That it became necessary for someone to tell grannie to shut her mouth because the truth would harm Obama should be a indicator that something is wrong.
The simple fact is you can pick away at the corners or get surrogates to refute or confuse this fact or that statement but the sheer weight of the evidence that Obama was born in Kenya is enormous. I don't envy the spinmeisters of the far left in covering up this story. Luckily for them the U.S. media is on their side. But as I pointed out that will change. When Obama is out in 2016 and then the "story" becomes more valuable then covering up the story watch and see reporters pushing and shoving each other to get on Sunday talk shows to release the "new" found evidence of Obama's birth.
My question for the lawyers out there is: If Obama was proven to be foriegn born and thus ineligible for the presidency could an arguement be made to overturn or annul all of his actions taken during his presidency?
GoneWithTheWind: But the truth is that Obama's grandmother proudly proclaimed that she was poresent at her grandson's birth UNTIL someone got to her and after that her comments and others conveniently became less incriminating.
Huh? It's in the original audio recording. This is what the right wing echochamber echos;
Ron McRae: Was she present when he was born in Kenya?
Translator: Yes. She says, "Yes she was! She was present when Obama was born."
This is what was actually said.
BROTHER TOM: He is asking her that, uh, he wants to know something that uh, was uh you, was they, was she present when, ah, he was born. Were they they there then?
TRANSLATOR OGOMBE: Yes, they say that yes she was. She was present when Obama was born.
MCRAE: OK. Uh, when I come in December I would like to go by the, the place, the hospital where he is born. Uh, could you tell me where he was born? Was he born in Mombasa?
TRANSLATOR OGOMBE: No! Obama was not born in Mombasa! He was born in America!
MCRAE: Wh-whereabouts, whereabouts was he born? I, I thought he was born in Kenya.
TRANSLATOR OGOMBE: No he was born in America, not in Mombasa.
MCRAE: OK. Do you know whereabouts he was born?
TRANSLATOR OGOMBE: Huh?
MCRAE: Do you know where he was born? I thought he was born in Kenya. I was gonna go by and see where he was born.
VOICE: It was Hawaii.
VOICE OF MRS. OBAMA OR ANOTHER WOMAN: Hawaii.
BROTHER TOM: Hawaii, yeah?
VOICE OF MRS. OBAMA OR ANOTHER WOMAN: Yeah.
TRANSLATOR OGOMBE: Yes.
TRANSLATOR OGOMBE: Sir, she says he was born in Hawaii.
TRANSLATOR OGOMBE: Yeah, in 1960 this was Hawaii, where his father, his father was also marrying there. This was Hawaii.
TRANSLATOR OGOMBE: Yeah.
MCRAE: Was, was, was Mrs. Obama, was sh--was she present? Was, was Mrs. Obama, see I thought you said she was present. Was she, was, was she, was she able to see him being, being born in, in Hawaii?
TRANSLATOR OGOMBE: Hoh? Uh, yeah would you please pronounce?
MCRAE: OK I’m sorry. I, I thought she said she was present when he was born. I was—
TRANSLATOR OGOMBE: No, no! The, the woman was not present. She was uh not, a what--you see, she was here in Kenya, and Obama was born in America. That is, that’s obvious.
Listen to the audio yourself, then ask yourself why people would purposefully misrepresent what Mrs. Obama said.
Come on now...gotta du better'n that...
Ever heard around (your/their) personnae(s)...
" a giant suckin' sound"...??
Anyone with two brain cells can see this
Could this possibly be the reason Zaka$$ speaks in the "plural singular"? Or is that the "singular plural"?
Will be entertaining if not interesting to see Democrats on the stump in coal county next year. The party of the trade unions has the UMWA.
Has Putin found Obama lacking? Quite possibly, they make no bones their nuclear weapons are a counter weight to "American domination", haven't backed off in any way on Syria, are making friends with Iran, yet also say Snowden should leave ASAP. Two steps forward one backward?
The Kremlin has had us from the get-go with Obama. That Start II treaty, moldering on the shelf for 25 years until the O came along, curtailed our verification rights --i ask you, for what reason could this have been important to the Kremlin?
Don't take a genius to figure it out, does it.
Treaty also made us build down sunk-cost capacity, while relieving Russia of that same cost Russia had not yet expended. The waste to us would have kept the Raptor program going, for one thing, while the saving to Putin was enough to build 1,600 5th generation fighters --about what we didn't build of the line we'd already sunk all but the copy cost into.
And that of course is just what Putin is doing.
Those who don't worry about such matters, on the grounds that another WWII is hard to imagine, should try imagining what diplomatic and global finance, trade, and influence will be like once the world has digested the shift in the balance of power.
Also try imagining no Dollar reserve currency --imagine that the Dollar is still good only because the USNavy can guarantee the free flow of the global oil market. Imagine all imports --raw materials too --costing at least a third more in Dollars worth two-thirds less against the replacing global reserve currency basket (basket if we're lucky). Imagine US GDP growth becoming impossible under the high interest rates as repriced trade without the free credit of trade partners who don't cash your checks, but hold them to trade-finance third party commerce.
Different world --that's why Obama is working so hard to traduce the US military.
Hello 1930s --all we need now is a dust bowl and it may be a-coming.
Once again, the SCOTUS presents itself as an institution that's worthy of considerable scorn and ridicule by The Common Man. I see an emerging pattern in its schizophrenic opinions. The apparent theme of this year's session is (somewhat belatedly) respect for the sovereignty of the separate states. In one decision, the majority strikes down crucial parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 on the grounds it disrespects the states' 10th Amendment rights, treats states unequally, and fails to acknowledge that circumstances regarding racial discrimination in the affected states have changed a lot, indeed greatly improved, since passage of the law in 1965. But then in a different opinion regarding the state university of one of those states that suffers under the heavy thumb of the DOJ, namely Texas, the Court apparently thinks racial discrimination hasn't diminished enough to simply end the UT's use of racial bias to discriminate against whites in its law school admissions. The Affirmative Action diversity charade lives on!
Today the Court strikes down the federal DOMA law and returns the power to regulate marriage back to the states, where it had previously resided. Great! It's what some of us here had argued for. Okay, Court, now about that old Roe v. Wade decision of yours that ripped the power to regulate medical abortions away from the states and handed it over to the Feds? Care to review that old opinion of yours in light of this new found respect of yours for the powers the Constitution's 10th Am. reserves to the states?