Somehow No One Seems To Think

Howard Kveck wrote:
In article ,
Fred Fredburger wrote:

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

He's confused because R. Limbaugh hates J. McCain.

That's only temporary, Limbaugh will eventually come around. I've got
$50 that says Kunich will remain confused.

That's not much of a bet, is it? There's not much hope of him *not* remaining
confused.


Right. Kunich isn't confused because Limbaugh hates McCain, there are
other reasons for that.

Limbaugh doesn't hate McCain, either. This is the point in the campaign
where it's his job to act like a bold free thinker who questions the
Republican establishment. After the convention, he has to tow the line.
But for now, he's busy providing evidence that he's not a boot-licking
toad to anyone who's inclined to be selective in their perceptions.

On Mar 24, 2:31 pm, (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
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

Which proves... what? That *some* liberal Founding Fathers opposed
slavery? Of course that's true. It's also true as Ben stated that
slavery was written into the constitution. You claimed: "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."

To me and others, writing slavery into the constitution was a
*GLARING* flaw in "their _original_ works", a totally repugnant
abomination. But hey, I admit it, I'm a liberal- just like Abraham
Lincoln.
-Paul

To me and others, writing slavery into the constitution was
a *GLARING* flaw in "their _original_ works", a totally repugnant
abomination. But hey, I admit it, I'm a liberal- just
like Abraham Lincoln.
-Paul

So Paul, as an abolitionist you realize your ambition to free the
slaves would have been motivated by money don't you? The vast majority
of abolitionist after all supported the _exportation_ of freed Africans.
You see Paul, there really were only three _period_ specific solutions
to ending slavery in post colonial America.
Abolish slavery and export the freeman back to a land which those born
into slavery had never even seen. Many anti-abolitionists opposed this
plan out of humanitarian concerns for the freeman. Most feared, freeman
would never "survive" the journey back to Africa.
Next, simply free the slaves. Without the necessary social skills to
assimilate into a predominantly white culture, many freeman would have
surely suffered great hardship and probable genocide. Again this option
was not chosen by the anti-abolitionists for humanitarian reasons.
The final option became the reality of the situation. The Founders &
Framers knew that the very nature of our Democratic Republic would
eventually resolve the problem. But it would and did take time.
I trust that 200 years from now (or sooner) a similar debate will
take take place regarding our Nation's current state of affairs.
I'm sure there will be a side that will say we could have all done
better. I trust there will be a side that will say "They were Americans,
they thought they were doing the best they could."
I think I can do better, how about yourself Paul?

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

"Michael Baldwin" wrote in message
...

I trust that 200 years from now (or sooner) a similar debate will
take take place regarding our Nation's current state of affairs.
I'm sure there will be a side that will say we could have all done
better. I trust there will be a side that will say "They were Americans,
they thought they were doing the best they could."
I think I can do better, how about yourself Paul?

I would word that a little differently. I don't think that people who act so
high and mighty about slavery have even the slightest inkling what the
problems were in a society where there was no cash to use and every deal was
made via trades.

On most of the plantations the majority of the worth of the plantation was
tied up in the slaves. It wasn't that slave holders wouldn't free the slaves
but that they simply couldn't without leaving themselves not just broke but
with no way to pay workers on their plantation.

It all eventually worked its way as the society advanced but it makes a lot
of those posting here look pretty ridiculous when they act as if freeing the
slaves was simply a matter of waving your hands.

By the way - indentured servants which were almost all white people from
Great Britain, had a FAR worse life with few of them living past their
indentures. After you got over your indenture there was no place to go to
earn a living. That meant actually starving to death and many resigned
indentures to remain working. This wasn't a case of the evil landholders but
a case of it being far cheaper to get another indentured servant than to pay
a free man here.

In article ,
Bill C wrote:

On Mar 24, 1:30*am, Howard Kveck wrote:
In article
,
*Bill C wrote:

These'll be folk heroes and probably be working for MoveOn, or Obama
by next week. His Pastor, Wright, is already being painted as a
victim.

* *Cite on the positive commentary by left-leaning people of stature on
this, please?
As well, how about a cite by a left-leaning person of stature painting
Wright as a
victim?

* *Along those lines, why is it that Wright and Obama have been such a
focal point?
Yeah, the media say that Wright is "un-American" and has said
"anti-American" things. The media demands that Obama "denounce" Farrakhan when
Obama did not ask for his endorsement. Yet there no focus on McCain and his
religious backers, John Haggee or Rod Parsley and their un-American statements.
McCain sought out those guys for their endorsements.

* *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/

Howard I expected your kneejerk. I had at least hoped you'd say
attacking the religious service was a bad thing. You keep harping on
me to do that with your examples, and I usually do, though sometimes
not clearly enough for your tastes.

If you expect a "kneejerk" then why do you post things in a manner that begs for a
reaction? Read what you wrote again then tell me it was simply a case of you
portraying all left-leaning people as being nonchalant or *fully in support of*
things like some assholes who make a mess and a disturbance at a church on Easter. I
chose not to comment on that because I figured it doesn't really matter if I do or
not. It's just as asinine as the clowns in black balclavas at antiwar protests that
went out and broke windows. They didn't have the support of the rest of the people
there, yet we were all condemned for it. So my commentary on these idiots is
pointless, as it gains me nothing.

I thought possibly you might make the argument equating these idiots
with Westboro baptist. In that case you'd have some argument.
We don't know for sure who accomplished what Al-Q couldn't and bombed
NY again, but I'd tend to doubt it was a conservative group.

Of course you doubt that. It doesn't seem to occur to you that (based on the
pattern that had been developing) it might simply be an attention seeker with no real
fixed politics? Because the right just doesn't blow stuff up, especially government
related stuff. After all, Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVey were lefties, correct? As
must surely be the various "Patriot" groups around the country or the cyanide bombers
in Texas (for a few examples).

How about the arsons on the west coast by ELF/ALF, right wing?

Bill, there's a ton of crap going on from both sides. Church bombings (back when)
and defacings now. Gay, rae and immigrant bashing, up to and including murder. Am I
demanding you renounce or condemn that? No. It's because I can understand that every
person on the more right-leaning end of the spectrum *doesn't* approve of that stuff.
But you seem to think that the entire group of people you like to call "the Left"
*is* aware of and condones any and all acts by any and all other people who might
fall onto the same "side."

All the protests that led to noraml people having their rights
voiolated over the last few days, any right wing?

Ahh, there it is in print: "normal people." So all us lefty wackos aren't normal.

The point is that the vast majority of the 'Direct Actions" are done
by, supported by, and paid for by folks from the left. They violate
the rights of other citizens, cost them money, time, and stress.
You happen to agree with most of it so it's not a problem for you. I
agree with them protesting, but not in a way that denies other people.

Bill, maybe you just can't understand it but one reason right-leaning people don't
need to go out and protest is because the government generally supports their
position with police, NSA activity, etc., right or wrong.

As for Wright I've lived with those clowns had my kids terrorised by
a nutjob evangelical precher in military housing. That's a whole other
story. I have NO sympathy. He can say whatever the hell he wants, but
he's preaching hate and inciting racist incidents. I'd equate him more
to David Duke.

Sorry, but I think you're wrong there. I don't agree with everything Wright says
but I do understand where he came from to get the perspective he has. Once again,
though: Obama has specifically rejected things that he said, yet people in the media
(Russert the hack leading the charge) continue to make a huge deal out of this. You
say Wright's words are "hate and inciting" - don't you think that Parsley's words are
filled with "hate and inciting"? "America was founded, in part, with the intention of
seeing this false religion [Islam] destroyed." That guy is one of McCain's "spiritual
advisors." Right now, Islam is the new communism for the right wing: the tribe they
all love to hate and fear.

I'd argue the double standard goes the other way on speech, at least.
John Rocker got run out of baseball. Reggie White's still a hero.

Bill, you say that you read the article I linked. Yet you still think "the left"
gets away with saying the greatest amount of **** talk? Wow. You know, the fifth
anniversary of the invasion oof Iraq just happened and many big media outlets had a
retrospective on it where they had a bunch of people on to talk about the way it's
gone. With about two exceptions, they were people who had supported the war and
continue to support it. In other words, people who had been entirely wrong about the
war. Yet we're supposed to believe that the media is liberal and "the left" dominates
discussion?

Anyway Bill, you post a statement like, "These'll be folk heroes and probably be
working for MoveOn, or Obama by next week" and you still wonder why you get a
reaction? That statement is Kunichian in its obtuseness, I think. You conflate any
and all left-leaning people with the worst ones.

--
tanx,
Howard

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

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article ,
Bill C wrote:

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/

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.

http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/0...ing/index.html

Sorry you did admit that FARC with their murdering and kidnapping
were "Kinda ****ty". Glad you could go that far.

You know Bill, you expect me to condemn the sundry "leftist" causes that you don't
agree with but you actually approve of the rightwing leaders that the US has
inflicted on and supported in various foreign countries because "at least they are
helpful to our national interests." My lack of "proper" condemnation of leftist ****
just isn't quite at the same level as that.

Just sayin'.

--
tanx,
Howard

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

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article ,
Fred Fredburger wrote:

Howard Kveck wrote:
In article ,
Fred Fredburger wrote:

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

He's confused because R. Limbaugh hates J. McCain.

That's only temporary, Limbaugh will eventually come around. I've got
$50 that says Kunich will remain confused.

That's not much of a bet, is it? There's not much hope of him *not*
remaining
confused.


Right. Kunich isn't confused because Limbaugh hates McCain, there are
other reasons for that.

Limbaugh doesn't hate McCain, either. This is the point in the campaign
where it's his job to act like a bold free thinker who questions the
Republican establishment. After the convention, he has to tow the line.
But for now, he's busy providing evidence that he's not a boot-licking
toad to anyone who's inclined to be selective in their perceptions.

Limbaugh is about hating on the "other" a whole lot, and the "other" right now is
the entirety of Islam. Giulianni was best at hating on them, so Rush liked him. But
everyone else hated Mayor Mc9-11, so all that's left is McCain. Yes, you're correct
that Rush will come around (and your reasoning is spot on). He's just going to be
quiet about it for a while.

--
tanx,
Howard

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

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Mar 24, 7:11 pm, (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
To me and others, writing slavery into the constitution was
a *GLARING* flaw in "their _original_ works", a totally repugnant
abomination. But hey, I admit it, I'm a liberal- just
like Abraham Lincoln.
-Paul

So Paul, as an abolitionist you realize your ambition to free the
slaves would have been motivated by money don't you? The vast majority
of abolitionist after all supported the _exportation_ of freed Africans.

What part of "I'm a liberal- just like Abraham Lincoln" is it that
you don't understand? Hell, I'd pry those slaves from the cold, dead
fingers of their conservative masters- just like Lincoln did.

Next, simply free the slaves. Without the necessary social skills to
assimilate into a predominantly white culture, many freeman would have
surely suffered great hardship and probable genocide. Again this option
was not chosen by the anti-abolitionists for humanitarian reasons.

Ah- I never looked at it that way- they kept them enslaved for
humanitarian reasons. This is very educational for someone like me
who's never been exposed to this type of thinking.

I think I can do better, how about yourself Paul?

Oh, I *know* you can do better; just read what you wrote. As for
myself- I'm feeling morally superior just about now. Why mess with
success?
-Paul

On Mar 24, 8:14 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

On most of the plantations the majority of the worth of the plantation was
tied up in the slaves. It wasn't that slave holders wouldn't free the slaves
but that they simply couldn't without leaving themselves not just broke but
with no way to pay workers on their plantation.

It all eventually worked its way as the society advanced but it makes a lot
of those posting here look pretty ridiculous when they act as if freeing the
slaves was simply a matter of waving your hands.

Yeah, as I recall the slaves were pried from the cold, dead hands of
the slave owners. But it was more like squeezing a trigger than waving
hands. But thanks for the lesson on the economics of slavery and the
motivations of the slave owners. I have to agree that some posting
here "look pretty ridiculous".

-Paul

On Mar 25, 12:20*am, Howard Kveck wrote:
* *If you expect a "kneejerk" then why do you post things in a manner that begs for a
reaction? Read what you wrote again then tell me it was simply a case of you
portraying all left-leaning people as being nonchalant or *fully in support of*
things like some assholes who make a mess and a disturbance at a church on Easter. I
chose not to comment on that because I figured it doesn't really matter if I do or
not. It's just as asinine as the clowns in black balclavas at antiwar protests that
went out and broke windows. They didn't have the support of the rest of the people
there, yet we were all condemned for it. So my commentary on these idiots is
pointless, as it gains me nothing.

The point is that those many of theose "clowns" have been "trained"
at events arranged by, and funded by mainstream left big donors and
names, Ted Turner for one.

*I thought possibly you might make the argument equating these idiots
with Westboro baptist. In that case you'd have some argument.
*We don't know for sure who accomplished what Al-Q couldn't and bombed
NY again, but I'd tend to doubt it was a conservative group.

* *Of course you doubt that. It doesn't seem to occur to you that (based on the
pattern that had been developing) it might simply be an attention seeker with no real
fixed politics? Because the right just doesn't blow stuff up, especially government
related stuff. After all, Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVey were lefties, correct? As
must surely be the various "Patriot" groups around the country or the cyanide bombers
in Texas (for a few examples).


That's exactly why I phrased it the way I did. We don't know who did
it. The likelyhood though is that it was someone opposed to military
recruiting.

How about the arsons on the west coast by ELF/ALF, right wing?

* *Bill, there's a ton of crap going on from both sides. Church bombings (back when)
and defacings now. Gay, rae and immigrant bashing, up to and including murder. Am I
demanding you renounce or condemn that? No. It's because I can understand that every
person on the more right-leaning end of the spectrum *doesn't* approve of that stuff.
But you seem to think that the entire group of people you like to call "the Left"
*is* aware of and condones any and all acts by any and all other people who might
fall onto the same "side."


No I think the vast majority of folks on the left DON'T approve of
this type of ****, just a lot of those leading the way for them, and
providing the funding. "Direct Action" seems to be an article of
faith, or rite of passage.
My read on who's committing this **** is, if you take out the stuff
like the WTO riots, that generally individual right wing nutcases
commit many less, but more personally violent stuff. I'd say the
incidents run 9 of 10 from the left, with most being property crimes,
denial of access, and intimidation.
The anti-abortion nutcases are real good at all those, but way less
active.


*All the protests that led to noraml people having their rights
voiolated over the last few days, any right wing?

* *Ahh, there it is in print: "normal people." So all us lefty wackos aren't normal.\

No, people of whatever flavor trying to go about their daily business
are normal. Those breaking the law aren't. Those folks who protest
within the law are normal too.


*The point is that the vast majority of the 'Direct Actions" are done
by, supported by, and paid for by folks from the left. They violate
the rights of other citizens, cost them money, time, and stress.
*You happen to agree with most of it so it's not a problem for you. I
agree with them protesting, but not in a way that denies other people.

* *Bill, maybe you just can't understand it but one reason right-leaning people don't
need to go out and protest is because the government generally supports their
position with police, NSA activity, etc., right or wrong.

Greg and I disagree massively with this. I'd say the US is a lot more
socialist, especially after FDR than anyone had envisioned. Even if
that was so, that's no justification to violate others. How about some
respect, both for law, and other people?


*As for Wright I've lived with those clowns had my kids terrorised by
a nutjob evangelical precher in military housing. That's a whole other
story. I have NO sympathy. He can say whatever the hell he wants, but
he's preaching hate and inciting racist incidents. I'd equate him more
to David Duke.

* *Sorry, but I think you're wrong there. I don't agree with everything Wright says
but I do understand where he came from to get the perspective he has. Once again,
though: Obama has specifically rejected things that he said, yet people in the media
(Russert the hack leading the charge) continue to make a huge deal out of this. You
say Wright's words are "hate and inciting" - don't you think that Parsley's words are
filled with "hate and inciting"? "America was founded, in part, with the intention of
seeing this false religion [Islam] destroyed." That guy is one of McCain's "spiritual
advisors." Right now, Islam is the new communism for the right wing: the tribe they
all love to hate and fear.

Yes generalizing that way is wrong. The specifics are another story.
Out of the last 10 terrorist attacks against US targets how many were
done in the name of Islam? Is the internal crap, and threat WAY
overblown? Hell yeah! I've only said it a million times. Historically
and practically it sure as hell is. That said so is the hysteria over
what is basically an insignificant number of combat deaths and
casualties from a historical perspective. ANY sucks, ANY when we
shouldn't have been there are too many, but look up Anteitam. Both are
indicative of America haven't become a hyper-sensitive, neurotic, fear
filled, soft nation.

*I'd argue the double standard goes the other way on speech, at least.
John Rocker got run out of baseball. Reggie White's still a hero.

* *Bill, you say that you read the article I linked. Yet you still think "the left"
gets away with saying the greatest amount of **** talk? Wow. You know, the fifth
anniversary of the invasion oof Iraq just happened and many big media outlets had a
retrospective on it where they had a bunch of people on to talk about the way it's
gone. With about two exceptions, they were people who had supported the war and
continue to support it. In other words, people who had been entirely wrong about the
war. Yet we're supposed to believe that the media is liberal and "the left" dominates
discussion?

You and I saw different coverage I guess. There was a lot of talk
about the improved situation, as part of the current assessment.
That's currently what is happening, but the massive overall majority
of stuff I saw was still "The Iraq war is wrong!" folks. You know what
I see. I'd put the overall balance 65-35 anti-war philosophically, and
locally it ran 98% anti war.

* *Anyway Bill, you post a statement like, "These'll be folk heroes and probably be
working for MoveOn, or Obama by next week" and you still wonder why you get a
reaction? That statement is Kunichian in its obtuseness, I think. You conflate any
and all left-leaning people with the worst ones.

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

NO, I expected your reaction, after I wrote it. You aren't the
average person from the left, any more than Greg is an average
libertarian.The fifth anniversary here in happy valley has been used
to bash America, the military, the people in uniform, and anyone to
the right of Jane Fonda. I'd planned to stay out of this thread, even
after the **** my wife took trying to go to work from the protesters
who got arrested here, until the Church incident. Once again all the
local stuff was in support of the brave protesters standing up to the
fascist man. It may well be, and I've said this a million times, that
the local climate colors how I see things.

Bill C