Jump to content

ANOTHER ROUGH WEEK FOR AMERICAN LIBERALISM/SOCIALISM


once upon a crime

Recommended Posts

The Tban have always looked at this fight the same way they looked at the fight with the Soviets. They have the initiative being that they know the terrain and have the home ground advantage and also have covert regional support from Pakistan. They can wait it out as long as they want and have turned it in to a classical insurgent war of attrition on the coalition. They are fighting an insurgency battle against a largely conventional force. If it was the US' home ground the ISAF would be able to play it differently being that it is their own people that have war forced upon them. But it isn't so the classical COIN tactics are much harder to employ because you alienate the local populace eventually pushing them toward supporting the Tban.

 

The locals also know that the US has to eventually leave and the Tban will always be there so they are fearful of what supporting the coalition will bring in the mid-term. Now that the ISAF have been talking of a negotiated settlement and allowing the bulk of the insurgents a place in the society instead of being eradicated the Tban leadership knows that they have the initiative. Start a hearts and minds campaign, create the image of an acceptable political force and with the US's obvious goal of getting the fuck out of there ASAP they can create an opportunity of getting a serious place at the table.

 

Iraq was a perfect example. THe US wanted a US installed government, they didn't get it and had to compromise and the Shi'ites are now slowly pushing the Sunnis out. The same will happen in Afghanistan for the simple reason being that the US obviously doesn't want to be there.

 

Obama is much more interested in domestic issues and this shit is a time and money black hole. THe US will create the minimal acceptable political/security environment and then get the fuck out. The Tban is moving to capitalise on this and Pakistan is rubbing its hands together.

 

Look for India maneuvering to undermine the strategic depth that Pakistan wants to create in Afghanistan. They know that this will strengthen Pakistan vis-a-vis India and will also create a region for which Pakistan can build a proxy force with which to attack India from (think the Mumbai attacks, the attack on India's parliament by Let) but also afford them deniability because it doesn't come from Pak soil.

 

And to be honest, this actually benefits the US to a large degree. Both Pakistan and India will be focused on their own region and their military and intelligence resources will be spent creating a capability to combat each other. This then stops them from creating a military that projects its force out of the region (such as aircraft carriers, subs, long range bombers, air refueling, etc.) and a capability that could eventually be turned against US interests.

 

IT also has the possibility of drawing other regional players in like Iran. It would also ensure that Russia would have to give it some attention being that the forces that could grow in Afghanistan would largely be ideological forces (Islamic extremism) that comes with an expansionist agenda. That means that the Muslim populations of the Central Asian states are at risk of that extremism bleeding in to the region and Russia does not want that as it already has its own Islamo-headache in the norther caucuses and will not want to rick that flaring up even more. However it would then also mean that India doesn't focus on China, as they have traditionally leaving China to build on its power projection capabilities as they already are.

 

It's a pretty big play going on in Afghanistan when viewed from a regional perspective and if the US plays it right it can keep the region tied up in knots for another few decades. And that would make the whole adventure VERY much worth the effort.

 

We shouldn't be involved with American troops in these regions. All of these wars are unconstitutional and illegal, and as far as I'm concerned debating the technicalities and details of proxy wars is irrelevant. The fundamental issue here is the legality of these wars and the paradigm that these wars are based off of. When Obama took office, instead of refuting the paradigm of the War on Terror that these wars are propagated on, he embraced the paradigm and legitimized the existence of these wars to take place. Obama gained the support and backing during his campaign from many people across our country who were against the war in Iraq, wanted a withdrawal of the troops, wanted to end torture, end the growing police-state, and bring about real change by putting power back into the hands of the people and taking it away from the powers that be like the Military Industrial Complex for example. Voting Obama into office was American's way of symbolically rejecting the Bush administration, but instead what we've received in the year since office was taken was almost like a third term.

 

I don't believe that the MIC ever had any intention of leaving Iraq. It's obvious that a majority of American PEOPLE don't want to be in Iraq, but we can be very certain that leaving Iraq completely will never happen in our lifetime and was never intended by the forces that lead us into that war. The same can be said now for these new wars we are being lead into which have the same paradigm foundation, and obviously our approval of these wars once again doesn't matter whatsoever.

 

Nothing about these wars benefits Americans at home. Maybe some of you are experts, and I will admit very intelligent when discussing the strategy and details of the proxy wars in these regions, but it is almost like discussing the partisan politics going on in Washington D.C when it's apparent to me and many others that both major parties are controlled by the same interests. Soup posted articles about how some of these terrorist groups are being funded, which to me has always been something suspicious. Obviously something more than ideals is occurring here, when it comes to terrorist organizations and their backing.

 

I'd like to stress that this isn't a football game either. Analyzing it from the top down like you are doing mitigates the realities on the ground that is occurring. Real people dying and killing for reasons that we can't even be certain of, and are involved in illegally and unconstitutionally. Honorable people who are willing to give their lives for what they believe in, on both sides because there is no good or bad. Look at what we've done to the Iraqi people, look at what is happening in Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, etc. These are all engagements that we are placing the burden of on future generations; your children, your children's children. Barack H. Obama could have made a significant difference in a years worth of time...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
  • Replies 273
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I certainly don't agree with either the war in Iraq or the war in Afghanistan, I wish the british government would leave it alone and also the US government, I am sure if that area of the world had nothing to offer us as countries (oil) then we would let them destroy themselves with their petty religious differences.

 

If you completely pulled out all the troops now, I reckon that you would have a big rise of pressure against the more westerised countries in the middle east and against the oil producers because if you control the oil you can basically dictate your terms to the world.

 

Cos face it Oil is the only reason America has any interest in the middle east, it has nothing to do with terrorism. America also has it ties to Israel which it refuses to condemn for their actions which is another issue completely.

 

It is always going to be a losing battle because we cannot stay thei rindefinitely and the taliban now this, the locals know this so they just have to wait it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bump zig's post.

 

he made a good point... most people want to talk about the technicalities while ignoring the main issue. illegal unconstitutional war and occupation of a foreign country. when debating health care they dont want to face up to the fact its unconstitutional for the federal government to be involved in healthcare to begin with, they just take it as a given that the constitution or rule of law means absolutely nothing. then they go back to business as usual debating which group to plunder this time, what human behavior to regulate next, and which country to invade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is dependant on your perspective of how important a certain document is, I understand Americans love of the constitution however to me it is just some old document that MAY not neccessarily offer the best advie in a modern world (I'm not saying it is pointless but times have changed to how things were back then so while it may offer guidelines I don't see the reason to follow its words to rule).

 

For example you may think it is unconstitional to have social healthcare, that is your opinion, I find it morally bankrupt and inhumane that one of the richest countries in the world doesnt provide basic healthcare for its poorest residents.

 

It may be good for an inward thinking country but we all live in a world economy nowadays and it is time to realise that our countries actions need to fit in with those of other countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that is the beauty of the federal system in the US. each state could do what they want. numerous states already basically have universal healthcare. no big deal. the problem is when you dont follow the rule of law you lose your rights. the government does things that it shouldnt be and they are usually evil. once you set the precedent of breaking the rule of law, the bad things are just as justified as the 'good' things like healthcare (or so most people think)

 

the bill of rights protects a bunch of rights.

 

but i do agree with you. i think the constitution is imperfect. i would of worded alot of things differently. another thing to point out is that there is an amendment process. it is fairly hard to pass an amendment, and it was meant to be. that was to allow each state to be sovereign and the bulk of the governing to take place on this level. it is much more liberty conscience to have a central government basically limited to defense and establishing a free trade zone amongst the states than to have one single central tyrannical authority ruling the lives of 300 million people. why not allow each location to run its self they way THEY want to?

not to mention a true federalist system would eliminate a huge amount of squabbling over issues. the north east would have basically a 85% socialized society. the mountain states would probably be the freest. what is wrong with this? why not allow states and the people a choice at decentralized self government?

 

the thing the centralists always dont recognize is that if a bad decision is made it affects everyone if made on the national level. if a state makes a bad decision it only affects that state. would you rather have the patriot act affect only one state or the whole country of 300 million? federalism also allows one to 'vote with their feet.' you cannot do this with a large central government.

 

but not one to be a radical extremist...i would gladly allow the US government the chance to stamp out hunger, eliminate environmental problems, and provide healthcare for everyone and do whatever utopian dreams they have IN WASHINGTON DC. once they accomplish this, then we can talk about moving on to the rest of the country. the government cant even deliver the mail at a profit or satisfy postal customers, how in the hell are they gonna cure everyones illness, feed everyone and save the environment one bug at a time?

 

im also quite positive that everyone who rejects the constitution from a statist standpoint or thinks its outdated or that liberty in general is outdated... would become born again constitutionalists if gw bush decided you were an enemy combatant and threw you in a black hole with out charging you with a crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My comment on healthcare isn't that they can't cure everyone's illnesses obviously that would never happen, I am just talking about allowing people access to medical care, there is a difference and I think it is terrible that you don't have it in the US, but that is just my opinion.

 

I also agree with your comment about the individual states running things the way they want, I don't see a problem with that, however like I said before we live in a world economy, you cannot just withdrawl from that and just use trade etc as you please without other countries benefitting from it also, and sadly as the whole world isn't equal it isn't just a case of free trade, some countries need aid. Some countries need peacekeeping forces to try to help stop genocides (Rwanda etc).

 

If we lived in a world where countries could just operate on their own and survive there wouldnt be a problem however we need oil, we don't produce enough ourselves therefore need to get it elsewhere, and it is the same for most things.

 

Back when the constitution was written all they had to focus on was America now politicians (as much as I dislike them) have to look at the world and foreign policy as a matter of priority, I may not agree 100% with it, but it is the world we live in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/misesian-vision139.html

 

It would appear that the more liberty we lose, the less people are able to imagine how liberty might work. It is a fascinating thing to behold.

 

  • People can no longer imagine a world in which we could be secure without massive invasions of our privacy at every step, and even being strip-searched before boarding airplanes, even though private institutions manage much greater security without any invasions of human rights;
  • People can no longer remember how a true free market in medical care would work, even though all the problems of the current system were created by government interventions in the first place;
  • People imagine that we need 700 military bases around the world, and endless wars in the Middle East, for "security," though safe Switzerland doesn’t;
  • People think it is insane to think of life without central banks, even though they are modern inventions that have destroyed currency after currency;
  • Even meddlesome agencies like the Consumer Products Safety Commission or the Federal Trade Commission strike most people as absolutely essential, even though it is not they who catch the thieves and frauds, but private institutions;
  • The idea of privatizing roads or water supplies sounds outlandish, even though we have a long history of both;
  • People even wonder how anyone would be educated in the absence of public schools, as if markets themselves didn't create in America the world's most literate society in the 18th and 19th centuries.

 

This list could go on and on. But the problem is that the capacity to imagine freedom – the very source of life for civilization and humanity itself – is being eroded in our society and culture. The less freedom we have, the less people are able to imagine what freedom feels like, and therefore the less they are willing to fight for its restoration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty sure the constitution was written by a slaveowner. You can scream about what's constitutional and what's not until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't mean you understand it. Arguing that point is stupido.

 

And your argument about some states should have public healthcare and some shouldn't:

 

America is the only industrialized nation in the world that doesnt have public healthcare, so the idea that america should just not have it would require an enormous deal of studies to prove the effectiveness of our purely private healthcare. I personally am uninsurable in the state of california because while I was insured i was in a motorcycle crash and banged my knee. I also suffered a concussion and had what is called PCS (post concussion syndrome) which they gave me xanax for. Because I hurt my knee and because i now have a history with xanax, one of the most prescribed drugs in america, I am denied affordable healthcare. With this being a stupid reason not to insure a perfectly healthy 23 year old and 15% of the US uninsured with millions more "underinsured" clearly, there needs to be changes in policy.

 

So here's the deal: http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~wgreene/Statistics/WHO-COMP-Study-30.pdf

America is statistically TIED with Cuba in healthcare (incidentally with Slovenia too).

 

Here's the list of nations with healthcare plans from best to worst:

1. France (All compulsory, no private, but prohibitively expensive)

2. Italy (All compusory, no private, and no riots about the cost in recent years)

3. San Marino (All public through employers, but some treatments must be done outside of San marino. private is usually bought alongside public to top-up coverage)

4. Andorra (Public, but the country is so small they only have/need 13 hospitals.)

5. Malta (writing all this shit is taking too long)

6. Singapore (most like the plan Obama is working on, is a public private coexistance with plenty of hospitals and costs about 3% of their gdp, 66% of that 3% is private)

7. Spain

8. Oman

9. Austria

10. Japan

11. Norway (100% population insured with public health, but if waiting lists are long, waiting list for hipreplacement is 4 months, many will opt-out of public health, go private and travel to another country for healthcare. dental is private. Norway is so damn rich they can do whatever)

12. Portugal

13. Monaco

14. Greece (Private if you dont qualify for public, public Hospitals lack good hygiene, but it's the cheapest in the EU. Most people buy private anyway.)

15. Iceland

16. Luxembourg

17. Netherlands

18. United Kingdom (public, private, and alternative holistic treatments available, 15th best in Europe, costs 8.4% of your salary which is 1% lower than the EU average)

19. Ireland

20. Switzerland

21. Belgium

22. Columbia

23. Sweden

24. Cyprus

25. Germany

26. Saudi Arabia

27. United Arab Emirates

28. Israel

29. Morocco

30. Canada

31. Finland

32. Australia

33. Chile

34. Denmark

35. Dominica

36. Costa Rica

37. United States o' America (Entirely private with the exception of Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans health insurance, and Childrens's health insurance. Costs 16% of the gdp and is likely to still go up )

38. Slovenia

39. Cuba (All compulsory, no private, and their hospitals are straight out of the 1950's)

40. Brunei Darussalam

41. New Zealand(Private and Public: Patient pays for visits and checkups, but damage caused by "Accidents" is free. Also a longer life expectancy than italy.)

42. Bahrain

42. Croatia

43. Qatar

44. Kuait

... jeeze im tired...

61. Mexico

112. India

144. China

...And the winner....

191. Sierra Leone

 

 

So as you can see all countries at the top offer at least public, most of the time with a private option either as alternative, or as a way to "top up" public coverage. There many different ways to set up health coverage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soup if you were a man of power and in the South during that time period, guess what you would have owned slaves too. It was the system in which the south worked. It isn't right, but to take away from what the Constitution stands for and means makes absolutely no sense what's so ever. Please explain your superior understanding of the document, that we all seem to be unable to figure out.

 

Yeah, good statistics. I seen them too after I watched Sicko.

 

Nobody is saying that there can not be improvements to our medical system. I am at least saying that the "free" public health care option is not the path to fixing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I was a soldier for a number of years and have been on a number of deployments. The cost, ugliness and wastage of conflict is definitely not lost on me. But, this is life as we know it for all its hideousness.

 

 

We shouldn't be involved with American troops in these regions. All of these wars are unconstitutional and illegal, and as far as I'm concerned debating the technicalities and details of proxy wars is irrelevant. The fundamental issue here is the legality of these wars and the paradigm that these wars are based off of.

Whilst I agree that it would be good if the powers that be followed the rules they are meant to uphold, they don't, that is plainly obvious and has always been this way. Expecting, wanting arguing it to be is futile and you will always be on the losing end of that issue if you refuse to recognise it. I sympathise, I also marched against the Iraq war with my girl and my Mum. But, reality is reality and it will be a cold day in hell when strategic gain is foregone in order to follow the rules. Unfortunate but true.

 

 

When Obama took office, instead of refuting the paradigm of the War on Terror that these wars are propagated on, he embraced the paradigm and legitimized the existence of these wars to take place. Obama gained the support and backing during his campaign from many people across our country who were against the war in Iraq, wanted a withdrawal of the troops, wanted to end torture, end the growing police-state, and bring about real change by putting power back into the hands of the people and taking it away from the powers that be like the Military Industrial Complex for example. Voting Obama into office was American's way of symbolically rejecting the Bush administration, but instead what we've received in the year since office was taken was almost like a third term.

 

What I don't get here is that anyone is actually surprised. I mean the guy is a politician, not an angel or the messiah. And this also goes back to my original argument, right at the start of the thread. Obama could get up during the election period and promise all these wonderful things (and actually even mean them, which I doubt he did) but when he comes to office there is no way in hell he can pull most of them off.

 

He can try and close Gitmo but the reality is that there are definitely some dirty fuckbags in there that you don't want to be releasing. Sure, there are heaps in there that should not have been arrested/kidnapped in the first place and have been mistreated since. They are SLOWLY being released back (and that is not an easy task either as if you send them home they are likely to be tortured/executed by their home government) but what do you do with the shitbags that really do deserve to be there? Civilian trials are not suitable because you are dealing with high end intelligence matters that are still current, etc. etc. So whilst he may be trying to do it (or not) there are very real constraints that make his promises VERY difficult.

 

Just like dealing with the Iraq and Afghan wars. If you just up and out from these places now there will be some very real and dangerous results (I will address that later when I have time) and Obama is now finding that it is nowhere as easy to do these things as he made out, whether he actually meant it or not.

 

I get the feeling that he probably only believed a percentage of what he said during the election period..., just like most other politicians. I mean, it is politics after all!!

 

 

 

 

I don't believe that the MIC ever had any intention of leaving Iraq.

I believe they do, but on the most favourable terms to the US. If they could set up a client state that would be the best option, kind of like KSA and Kuwait are. Protectorates that allow you to base assets there when you need it. There are lots of lilypad bases throughout the world in client states that don't need permanent bases. No reason why Iraq couldn't be another.

 

It's obvious that a majority of American PEOPLE don't want to be in Iraq, but we can be very certain that leaving Iraq completely will never happen in our lifetime and was never intended by the forces that lead us into that war.

Um, no you cannot be certain. You may believe that but you cannot be certain because you do not hold that information, you are theorising.

 

 

The same can be said now for these new wars we are being lead into which have the same paradigm foundation, and obviously our approval of these wars once again doesn't matter whatsoever
.

You misunderstand the world if you ever thought the electorate's approval for war ever did matter.

 

Nothing about these wars benefits Americans at home. Maybe some of you are experts, and I will admit very intelligent when discussing the strategy and details of the proxy wars in these regions,

I don't know what you think a proxy war is but Iraq is not one and neither is Afghanistan. The Iraq war was a war against the Saddam regime, meaning a conventional style war (that then became an insurgency because Rumsfeld was an idiot), and Afghanistan was a war against the Taliban regime of afghanistan that is basically still going. No proxies involved here, it's one against the other for control over territory.

 

 

but it is almost like discussing the partisan politics going on in Washington D.C when it's apparent to me and many others that both major parties are controlled by the same interests. Soup posted articles about how some of these terrorist groups are being funded, which to me has always been something suspicious. Obviously something more than ideals is occurring here, when it comes to terrorist organizations and their backing.

Ideals is almost never the reason for war, it's almost always control over territory and resources and the power to control a region in order to provide security for your nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice Casek. Keeping it crossfirey. You still havent responded to what I said earlier about Charlotte Iserbyt.

 

As for the constitution:

 

Im not taking sides here. Im providing factual evidence that can be argued either way. The definitions of the ammendments can be understood numerous ways, and if you ever payed atttention to the supreme court, every single one of those judges has their own interpretation. An example of an interpretation is easily seen with "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" does not include slaves. The constitution therefor has perpetuated the issue of class in America and sees the poorest workers as a tradable commodity instead of human beings.

 

America is a hugely litigious society with an inherent understanding that if an argument wouldn't hold up in court, it's not worth arguing, therefor [due to the infinite translations of the constitution] Universal healthcare being unconstitutional would likely not hold up in court.

 

As for healthcare:

Like I said, I'm not taking sides. I think healthcare is a much more complex issue that spans far beyond it being just public or private. "Universal healthcare" around the world does not have a universal definition. Neither does private healthcare. It's important to look at the unique healthcare of each and every nation for exactly what itis and critique it accordingly. That is the only way to debate healthcare intelligently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice Casek. Keeping it crossfirey. You still havent responded to what I said earlier about Charlotte Iserbyt.

 

As for the constitution:

 

Im not taking sides here. Im providing factual evidence that can be argued either way. The definitions of the ammendments can be understood numerous ways, and if you ever payed atttention to the supreme court, every single one of those judges has their own interpretation. An example of an interpretation is easily seen with "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" does not include slaves. The constitution therefor has perpetuated the issue of class in America.

 

America is a hugely litigious society with an inherent understanding that if an argument wouldn't hold up in court, it's not worth arguing, therefor --due to the infinite translations of the constitution-- Universal healthcare being unconstitutional would likely not hold up in court.

 

As for healthcare:

Like I said, I'm not taking sides. I think healthcare is a much more complex issue that spans far beyond it being just public or private. "Universal healthcare" around the world does not have a universal definition. Neither does private healthcare. It's important to look at the unique healthcare of each and every nation for exactly what itis and critique it accordingly.

 

 

Our forefathers were quite specific in the writing of the Constitution. "All men" means just that, all of us.

 

BTW: it's "INalienable"

"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance." --Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument, 1770. FE 1:376

 

 

From Federalist 63: “There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind?”

 

 

 

 

As for Charlotte Iserbyt: Why don't you read the book?

 



 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our forefathers were quite specific in the writing of the Constitution. "All men" means just that, all of us.

 

BTW: it's "INalienable"

"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance." --Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument, 1770. FE 1:376

I know very little of US history, so please forgive my ignorance, but was slavery still around when this was written?

 

 

From Federalist 63: “There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind?”

 

This could be used subjectively by any person against any measure. It's so nebulous that it ends up meaning nothing. Unless there is a context that I am unaware of here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know very little of US history, so please forgive my ignorance, but was slavery still around when this was written?

 

 

 

 

This could be used subjectively by any person against any measure. It's so nebulous that it ends up meaning nothing. Unless there is a context that I am unaware of here.

 

 

All of the founding fathers were against slavery even though most owned slaves.

 

Thomas Jefferson on slavery:

 

"The abolition of domestic slavery is the great object of desire in those colonies where it was unhappily introduced in their infant state. But previous to the infranchisement of the slaves we have, it is necessary to exclude all further importations from Africa. Yet our repeated attempts to effect this by prohibitions, and by imposing duties which might amount to a prohibition, have been hitherto defeated by his majesty negative: thus preferring the immediate advantages of a few British corsairs to the lasting interests of the American states, and to the rights of human nature deeply wounded by this infamous practice. Nay the single interposition of an interested individual against a law was scarcely ever known to fail of success, tho' in the opposite scale were placed the interests of a whole country. That this is so shameful an abuse of a power trusted with his majesty for other purposes, as if not reformed would call for some legal restrictions."

 

 

(to Thomas Humphreys). "I concur entirely in your leading principles of gradual emancipation, of establishment on the coast of Africa, and the patronage of our nation until the emigrants shall be able to protect themselves. The subordinate details might be easily arranged. But the bare proposition of purchase by the United States generally, would excite infinite indignation in all the States north of Maryland. The sacrifice must fall on the States alone which hold them; and the difficult question will be how to lessen this so as to reconcile our fellow citizens to it. Personally I am ready and desirous to make any sacrifice which shall ensure their gradual but complete retirement from the State, and effectually, at the same time, establish them elsewhere in freedom and safety. But I have not perceived the growth of this disposition in the rising generation, of which I once had sanguine hopes. No symptoms inform me that it will take place in my day. I leave it, therefore, to time, and not at all without hope that the day will come, equally desirable and welcome to us as to them. Perhaps the proposition now on the carpet at Washington to provide an establishment on the coast of Africa for voluntary emigrations of people of color, may be the corner stone of this future edifice."

 

 

George Washington:

 

"I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of slavery."

 

 

John Adams:

 

“Consenting to slavery is a sacrilegious breach of trust, as offensive in the sight of God as it is derogatory from our own honor or interest of happiness”

 

 

plenty more...if you'd like

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Charlotte Iserbyt: Why don't you read the book?

 

 

Because ive heard her verbalize the points in her book and they are, as far as I can see, flatout wrong and misleading. If you have read the book you're welcome to begin a discussion about them. I've made perfectly clear what my point of view is, and they are open for rebuttal at any time.

 

back to the discussion of the constitution:

C'mon casek, let me see that rhetoric. Who is "All of us?" Is "All of us" clearly defined, because Thomas Jefferson had slaves. Im not saying he didnt love his slaves-- He may've loved his slaves too much-- But abolishing slavery was never on his political agenda. He may've wanted to emancipate them (that's a socialist term,btw, AOW) by teaching them to read and write, but not free them. When he wasnt fucking his slaves he had them at work in his nail factory. We can hold that truth to be self-evident, bitches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is[/url], and they are open for rebuttal at any time.

 

back to the discussion of the constitution:

C'mon casek, let me see that rhetoric. Who is "All of us?" Is "All of us" clearly defined, because Thomas Jefferson had slaves. Im not saying he didnt love his slaves-- He may've loved his slaves too much-- But abolishing slavery was never on his political agenda. He may've wanted to emancipate them (that's a socialist term,btw, AOW) by teaching them to read and write, but not free them.

 

 

Maybe you're just an idiot. She's in more of a position than you are to speak on such a subject. Her resume is quite impressive. Let's see yours.

 

 

 

"All men are created equally". Is that so hard to define?

 

emancipation (freeing someone from the control of another

 

Pretty clear there. It was already done, Soup. Jefferson wanted it to end, and had tried

in the ways he saw fit (which I agree with). He became too old and wanted the generations that followed to finish what he had tried to start.

 

http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Quotations_on_Slavery_and_Emancipation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? A member from the Regan administration with a clear axe to grind against soviet russia who fears america becoming socialist is less subjective and more inclined to speak reality than I am? And you say "You're an idiot" Well played casek, well played.

 

How about you start with rebuting my points and we'll go from there.

 

Slavery wasnt abolished at the time of the constitution. And Thomas Jefferson never freed his own slaves. The only slaves he ever freed were his own illegitimate children. he never even freed the woman he had them with.

 

Emancipation of slaves and Abolishion of slavery are two totally different things. One allows them to be taught to read and write, the other lets them leave Thomas Jefferson's estate and live their own lives. While thomas jefferson was before his time in believing that blacks werent heathens and actually real people, he still kept them on the farm. "Then in 1817, Jefferson refused an opportunity from a friend to pay for the emancipation of Jefferson's slaves. Jefferson claimed he was too old and tired." He wasnt too old and too tired. He was a pawn in the aristocracy and feared offending his slaveowning friends. Jefferson wanted brown sugar, not freedom for all. http://hnn.us/articles/48794.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? A member from the Regan administration with a clear axe to grind against soviet russia who fears america becoming socialist is less subjective and more inclined to speak reality than I am? And you say "You're an idiot" Well played casek, well played.

 

How about you start with rebuting my points and we'll go from there.

 

Slavery wasnt abolished at the time of the constitution. And Thomas Jefferson never freed his own slaves. The only slaves he ever freed were his own illegitimate children. he never even freed the woman he had them with.

 

 

Yeah, same time.....only about 80 years apart. Definitely the same time.

 

"The House Joint Resolution proposing the 13th amendment to the Constitution, January 31, 1865."

 

On April 19, 1866, the African-American citizens of Washington, D.C., celebrated the abolition of slavery.

 

 

Well, Soup, you're a 20 something college kid. She worked as senior advisor to the President. Yeah, I tend to trust her.

 

 

Wikipedia is not a trusted source, Soup. If college professors won't allow it, it shouldn't be here, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There you go buddy, I edited what i wrote. Gone is the wikipedia link and replaced with George Mason University's history news network.

 

And Im not saying Charlotte isnt educated and well informed. I just think her opinion is biased towards her longstanding association with the Reagan administration, and ultimately against everything going on today. She thinks our education is turning into a socialist compulsory system making new generations into socialist brainless middle-class workerbees. Reality is we have no middle-class. We outsource all our work from other countries and bus in illegal immigrants. Previous generations also HATE the new generation of selfish self-motivated kids. While old generations had to work and climb the corporate ladder, the new generation of kids have absolutely no faith in corporations therefore make quick grabs for cash and get out as quick as possible. That's the reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh word? What im saying is a whitewash of intelligence but all you can say is "read that book."

If you read it, discuss it. How hard is that?

 

This is what im gonna do. Here's what i said and if you have any info you'd like to add to any of the comments i've made, you're free to do so.

Im sure I would, but instead of reading this thing tonight because it's late I decided to do research on Charlotte instead.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2022216775239993744#

 

So I watched that, and her interview with Alex Jones and clearly she's a very passionate woman who's very educated and such, and while I can see the truth in some of the things she says, other things she says make absolutely no sense to me, so here you go:

 

1. During the regan administration the united states educational system has been designed to move america towards being more compatable with the soviet union.

 

Ok, i see that we are on better terms with Russia now than we were back then, but since then we have had a serious cold war with them and fought to keep them out of the middle east. So it seems to me that we've been trying to make them more capitalistic, not us more socialistic.

 

2. We are turning our educational system into the exact same educational system in soviet russia.

 

First off she said we're doing this by making our students fail and making them illiterate. [Aside from the fact that it's the kids parents and their home economic issues that are the main reason for innercity kids failing,] The soviet's educational system is better than ours. Their kids are ranked the 3rd smartest kids in the world. If we're 4th, how's failing our kids socialism? Even CUBANS are smarter than your average americans. I'm saying that because i've been to cuba, U of Havanna, their grade schools. Their literacy rate is higher than america's. They're poor but their 14 year old kids can all sing, dance, play an instrument, tell you every nation's capital, speak in 3 different languages. I think i went to five different schools in Cuba, probably because that's the big thing Cuba's got going. Americans used go to Cuba to become doctors because college only cost 5 grand. For cubans it's free. They know all about america and yet we know shit about Cuba. Its fucking amazing. And while Charlotte is trying to tell everyone that the government of socialist countries forces you into jobs, you find doctors in cuba who are your hotel maids because that's where the money is, so people can still take up any job they want they're just at least guaranteed a job somewhere.

 

3. Barack Obama launched his campaign in Bill Ayers' living room, has both been apart of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge which was a challenge of how to reform the educational system into a socialist regime.

 

THIS one right here is very interesting because i cant find that much info about the CAC. And Bill Ayers is a very cool guy to me. I for a while was very interested with the weathermen, which he co-founded, and I cannot for the life of me see him wanting to turn americans into socialist robots as Charlotte has expressed. This was a guy who was willing to bomb corporate and government buildings in the name of free speech and civil rights. Now he wants to take them away from us?

 

 

Go for it casek. It's your book. Learn me. Honestly tho I believe Charlotte has good intentions and i think some of the reforms she's asking for are great ideas. I just dont understand why she's vilifying the socialist school system. That shit is like the LEAST of my worries. I'd rather the educational system institute a cirriculum of wonderment and phenomenology at a young age instead of telling kids what shit is, and what it isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh word? What im saying is a whitewash of intelligence but all you can say is "read that book."

If you read it, discuss it. How hard is that?

 

This is what im gonna do. Here's what i said and if you have any info you'd like to add to any of the comments i've made, you're free to do so.

 

 

Don't care to. You're obviously on the tip where you'll argue anything that is anti Obama.

Hell, I'm surprised you haven't called anyone a racist for disagreeing with Obama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayers joined the Weatherman group in 1969, but went underground with several associates after the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion in 1970, in which three members (Ted Gold, Terry Robbins, and Diana Oughton, who was Ayers’s girlfriend at the time) were killed while constructing a bomb. The group planned to bomb Fort Dix Army Base in New Jersey.

 

From 1969 until 1975 the group carried out a domestic campaign that included bombing the Pentagon, the US Capitol, police facilities and banks. At least one police officer died and several injured.

 

In 1981, Weathermen and members of the militant group the Black Liberation Army robbed an armored car in New York state, killing two police officers and a guard in a shootout before being arrested.

 

Ayers’s interviewed with the New York Times about his book, Fugitive Days: A Memoir, on September 11, 2001, and opens with his statement:

 

“I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.”

 

 

 

 

Yeah, sounds like a guy that is totally great. I mean, setting bombs, killing cops. Good that he's friends with Obama....

and great that he was the ghostwriter of Obamas autobiography....

 

/s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...