Somehow No One Seems To Think

On Mar 24, 9:25*am, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
wrote in message

...



Many representatives of the slave states argued that
slavery was both permanently economically necessary,
and morally justifiable.

Just for informations sake when bjw says "Many" he means everyone - even
representatives of non-slave states. He won't brook argument.

Hey Tom
Not sure where you're coming from. I think he wrote exactly what he
meant, and unless I've missed something huge he's perfectly correct in
what he wrote. Some of them were still making that argument even after
the Civil War. I'd bet you could find morons to still make that
argument today too.
Bill C

On Mar 24, 1:30*am, Howard Kveck wrote:


* *Apparently, if you're black, anything you say is suspect. If you're white, it's a
different story.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa.../03/17/wright/

--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * tanx,
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Howard

* * * * * * * * * * * * Whatever happened to
* * * * * * * * * * * * Leon Trotsky?
* * * * * * * * * * * * He got an icepick
* * * * * * * * * * * * That made his ears burn.

* * * * * * * * * * *remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

To comment specifically on your link he makes many good points. You've
also seen me, MANY, times call the right wing nutcases Anti-American
scumbags and bigots. I'm still waiting on you to admit that there
might even be the possibility of maybe there being any slightly
extremist positions or actions taken by anyone on the left.
Sorry you did admit that FARC with their murdering and kidnapping
were "Kinda ****ty". Glad you could go that far.
Bill C

On Mar 23, 6:43 pm, (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
For the past 35 years I've been a self study
of our nations framers & founders. I've yet to "discover"
a flaw in their _original_ works.
Um.... slavery? Allowing women to vote? The electoral college? Those
are just three GLARING flaws in their _original_ works. What
WAS forward-thinking was providing a means to amend the constitution.
-Paul

Paul, the F&F's knew that holding any people in servitude was wrong,
however they also knew that to release slaves as freemen would have
meant genocide in the pre-1800's. At the time, the debate over the
issue of slavery wasn't as much about whether or not the practice should
end, but rather how to end it.

Sorry Mike, that is just nuts. The pro-slavery Founding Fathers were
quite comfortable with slavery, and had plenty of moral arguments in
favor of it. For example, the bible sets forth many rules for how one
should treat slaves. That obviously implies God's approval of slavery.
Just google "slavery bible" to find a long list of pro-slavery bible
quotes like this:

Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a
rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be
punished: for he is his money [property]."

Now clearly, someone living a bible-centered life could justify not
only having slaves, but also beating them, and even beating them to
death, as long as the slave lived at least a day after the beating.
So it was easy to justify slavery on moral grounds- it's in the bible!
-Paul

"Bill C" wrote in message
...
On Mar 24, 9:25 am, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
wrote in message

...
Many representatives of the slave states argued that
slavery was both permanently economically necessary,
and morally justifiable.

Just for informations sake when bjw says "Many" he means everyone - even
representatives of non-slave states. He won't brook argument.

Not sure where you're coming from.

Maybe I'm coming from the idea that the most white Americans killed in a war
was that war to free us from slavery. Scum sucking nobodies like trash
talking fools here are only interested in making themselves appear to be
nice Liberal when the truth is that they would NEVER actually take any
actions themselves. Instead they pretend to be superior beings with the
ability to judge people and circumstances they can't even imagine.

wrote:
Some of the Founders knew that writing slavery into the constitution was a
desperate and morally repugnant deed. They did it because they felt
keeping the free and slave states in the same union was more important for
the survival of the future country, and if they hadn't written it in, the
slave states could have taken their ball (and chain) and gone home. But
these people also knew that it was a flaw, perhaps a fatal flaw. Nothing
is perfect; pretending that the Republic was not born in sin, when the
three-fifths rule was written into the Constitution, is willful blindness.

Fortunately rbr's founding father benjamin franklin was an abolitionist
who freed all his slaves.

On Mar 24, 1:08*pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"Bill C" wrote in message

...
On Mar 24, 9:25 am, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

wrote in message

....
Many representatives of the slave states argued that
slavery was both permanently economically necessary,
and morally justifiable.

Just for informations sake when bjw says "Many" he means everyone - even
representatives of non-slave states. He won't brook argument.

*Not sure where you're coming from.

Maybe I'm coming from the idea that the most white Americans killed in a war
was that war to free us from slavery. Scum sucking nobodies like trash
talking fools here are only interested in making themselves appear to be
nice Liberal when the truth is that they would NEVER actually take any
actions themselves. Instead they pretend to be superior beings with the
ability to judge people and circumstances they can't even imagine.

Hey Tom
Ok I see where that argument is. That's not anything I would've
connected with Ben's original comment.
That one cuts a lot of different people though. I've sort of been
following the CNN discussion boards about "Green Card Troops". The
hatred being aimed at, and about them is amazing, from all sides.
You've got the typical "We're exploiting them!!" Liberal rants, the
nutjob, scumbag, right wingers screaming "Only people who are already
citizens should be able to fight. Those wetbacks don't have any
loyalty!!" and lots of crap in between. Personally I've been in favor
of a US foreign legion for a long time. I also like those "green card"
folks in the military a whole hell of a lot, primarily because their
motivation for being there matched my own, which was, and is to give
back to, and be part of a great country which has given, and offered
me a great life. They chose to be here, recognize what a privilege it
is, and are willing to sacrifice everything to be here. Works for me.
Then you've got the folks who are happy to protest, riot, and **** on
the US, as long as it's done here in the US where that's a pretty safe
way to go, as opposed to some of the paradises they hold out as
examples like Cuba. That's why they'll go to Cuba to protest Gitmo,
with the help of the government there, but NEVER say a word about
Castro's long brutal, ongoing record while they are there. Those folks
aren't throwing us into wars though, except "Legacy Bill and Mad
Maddie" who lowered the bar for Georgie with their fiascos. You've
got to admit that most of them, except for a handful of nutjobs,
agreed with, and supported going into Afghanistan after the Taliban.
Seems to me that most of them still support that mission which we are
screwing up because of Georgie's Iraq adventure. What we were sold, on
Iraq, and what it really was are two totally different stories IMO,
that's why I don't hold anything against those folks who voted for it.
I AM ****ed at the administration for their actions, and totally agree
with thwe folks who want prosecution as soon as they are out of
office.
The other side of that are the chickenhawk POS types who are all for
war, as long as they, their kids, families, and friends don't have to
go fight it. Wave the flag, curse anyone who disagrees, and hide like
hell when it comes time to actually put their asses on the line.
None of that applies to those folks who stood up in the civil rights
movement. That took, real, big brass balls, because they were, and
knew they were, risking torture, and murder, and attacks on their
families to take that stand, and they still did.
Lots of questions, and condemnations to go around, about everyone and
their actions.
Bill C

No simple answer, but if you are saying that a lower percentage of
Americans, in this generation, would fight for America, for any reason
I agree. LA and NY could get nuked and the first two responses would
be screaming, "We deserved it!!" and blockading military installations
to make it more difficult for us to respond and react. I'm still
trying to figure out how, and why disrupting, US military activities,
troop, and supply shipments during a war, such as the last couple of
days isn't material support of enemy forces. They don't even have to
pay for, or sneak saboteurs in today, we've got plenty of homegrown
folks willing to do it for them.
This was an argument Lafferty and I had way back at the beginning of
Iraq. He helped organise one of the first protests, and I helped him
with suggestions, some people to talk to etc...because that IS
American. Where that went off the rails was the location. My strong
suggestion was to hold the protest at the regional federal building
and courthouse, because they made the decision to go to war, and would
be the ones to vote to stop it. They on the other hand decided to
blockade, and disrupt the local Air Reserve Base. That's the line for
me, and was in that case too. Blocking military operations is direct
support for the enemy, and does nothing to stop the war, because those
folks, as you know, aren't making the decisions.
I know that you disagree, but there isn't anyone here including
Howard that I would say is anti-American, and the un-American folks
aren't Americans.

"Bill C" wrote in message
...

You've got to admit that most of them, except for a handful of nutjobs,
agreed with, and supported going into Afghanistan after the Taliban.
Seems to me that most of them still support that mission which we are
screwing up because of Georgie's Iraq adventure.

Firstly, Afghanistan is doing so much better than it was under the Taliban
that it is sort of shocking to read in print about how bad it's doing.
That's pretty much a lie.

What we were sold, on Iraq, and what it really was are two
totally different stories IMO, that's why I don't hold anything
against those folks who voted for it.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We
want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal
here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest
security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to
the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom
Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

I could go on and on.

I AM ****ed at the administration for their actions, and totally agree
with thwe folks who want prosecution as soon as they are out of
office.

Strange, Clinton was OK.

On Mar 24, 5:35*pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:


Strange, Clinton was OK.

Nope. Not my words. He wasn't the disaster people try to portray him
as, but he wasn't anything great either. I'd rate him as average as
President. If Bush hadn't blundered just about everything he's touched
Clinton would look a lot worse.
Iraq was contained, and we could've gone the same route as Bosnia at
any time to remove suspect facilities and people. That would've left
enough troops to concentrate on Afghanistan instead of Canada having
to beg, and threaten to get another lousy thousand.
Albright and Reno on the other hand ARE what you scrape off the
bottom of your shoe after a walk in the park.
Bill C

Ben called me out so, maybe he would like to level his charges
against Mr. James Madison as well, who wrote:

It ought be considered as a great point gained in favor of humanity
that a period of twenty years may terminate forever, within these
States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly upbraided the
barbarism of modern policy; that within that period it will receive a
considerable discouragement from the federal government, and may be
totally abolished, by a concurrence of the few States which continue the
unnatural traffic in the prohibitory example which has been given by so
great a majority of the Union. Happy would it be for the
unfortunate Africans if an equal prospect lay before them of being
redeemed from the oppression of their European brethren!

James Madison - #42, The Federalist Papers

just regards - Mike Baldwin

On Mar 24, 10:08*am, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"Bill C" wrote in message

...
On Mar 24, 9:25 am, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

wrote in message

....
Many representatives of the slave states argued that
slavery was both permanently economically necessary,
and morally justifiable.

Just for informations sake when bjw says "Many" he means everyone - even
representatives of non-slave states. He won't brook argument.

*Not sure where you're coming from.

Maybe I'm coming from the idea that the most white Americans killed in a war
was that war to free us from slavery. Scum sucking nobodies like trash
talking fools here are only interested in making themselves appear to be
nice Liberal when the truth is that they would NEVER actually take any
actions themselves.



Dumbass -


From what I've seen, you're the type who would've been in the pro-
slavery camp.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.