Slashdot Mirror

I ask this question every time someone tries to say there was a shift. Exactly WHEN did this shift take place, where the KKK became part of the Republicans. I'll bet, you can't actually point to when.

Oh my, Archangel Michael seems to think he can create a false standard by requiring a particular and exact moment, as if anybody would be inane enough to be fooled by such a requirement. Sorry, but all you accomplished was to demonstrate, as you often do, how biased, flawed, and partisan your argumentation is. It's similar to the one Zeno used to point out sophistry, thus you are way too obvious.

So thanks, once again, you show us yourself, for the wretched fraud of a human being you are.

But I'd say that the Republican party turned its backs on blacks no later than 1876. Possibly sooner, depends on how you count NOT prosecuting the traitors in the South. Or Lincoln's willingness to talk peace.

Hell even the revered FDR was a fucking Racist pig segregationist.

Facts speak otherwise

And lets not forget Johnson's "Ni**er" comments.

You mean the one that's made-up?

If you can do that, why not make up quotes about anybody?

Hell I'll even say the Modern Democrat party is filled with the real kind of Racism with their "Blacks can't help themselves, we have to help them" attitude.

You say a lot of things, most of them fallacious, so what? You seem to think that nobody remembers the bullshit you say, but you shovel it enough that people catch on.

You can see examples in this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Here's a nice video for you or this one or this or this one.

Maybe you should get a license before you exercise your First Amendment rights. Or at least attend a training course. You might not shoot your mouth off so easily.

You start by calling me a racist and think that my reply was meant to engage you in a political argument?

No, actually, I don't see Bruce Perens calling you a racist, in fact, you interjected yourself, but actually, to start yourself off, you are one who stated:

"In fact, the entire "argument" for the left is that you are a racist if you don't agree with them."

A very defensive reaction, and a false premise, but I guess you wanted to get enraged over an imagined attack, and direct your abuse at the left" as Bruce Perens already described you. You began with trying to play the victim card, that comes across as hysterical posturing, nothing more.

That you then jumped to "They have no logic, no reason, nothing but insults." is even more discrediting when we consider the tendency of the current President to make up accusations, throw-out insults, and otherwise present fact-deficient claims, a problem that also applies to many in the Republican party, and yes, even to yourself. As demonstrated by your own conduct here.

Which actually makes me wonder if you're not trying to make them look bad as you're paid to be a discredit to the conservative party.

Sheesh, and you think that I'm the kid here.

Here's what ESR (you've heard of him, no?) had to say about the election:

Eric Scott Raymond isn't immune to foolish statements either, though I will say that if nothing else, he managed to endeavor to a higher level than yourself. Still, he got numerous facts wrong, and his premises are broken.

And what lesson did you learn from this election?

That Donald Trump only barely managed to outperform Bush, after 12 years of population growth, and that more effort needs to be focused on controlling gerrymandering and voter initiatives. But even with that, it was still a substantial lead in the popular vote, and no amount of lying about a landslide will change Trump's win from anything except a popular victory. As noted, you were also engaged in that lie, when you claimed the "people" favored him. A deceit of your own, and you should know better. But you don't want to do that.

Personally, I think Tim Kaine was the weakness. He delivered Virginia, but what else? Not much. Somebody with more dramatic left-wing appeal should have been chosen. Or more right-wing appeal. A Republican "disgusted" at Trump would have brought voters into the fold by the millions.

"The party that formed specifically to abolish slavery, that gave their very lives by the hundreds of thousands to free the slaves from their Democrat masters, and that passed something like a dozen civil rights acts over the objections of Democrats, has always been racist."

Yup, believe it or not, it HAS been a long-standing accusation against the Republican Party and its leaders. Namely, Douglas was saying that about Lincoln during their famed debates.

Take the Civil War and emancipation. It didn't take more than a decade before the Republicans walked away from protecting black civil rights in favor of winning the Presidency.

Sorry, but even Lincoln can't be sainted on the issue, let alone the thousands of other elected Republicans, or even the ones today.

Lastly, you talk about American reluctance for a strong central government -- but that is exactly what we have. And it is only getting stronger.

I think the government was relatively larger and more feared during this period:

https://www.gilderlehrman.org/...

the constitutional fashion of the day is frequently overridden by later courts. there are dozens of major issues like this. slavery and segregation for example

at one point, the highest court of the land upheld prohibiting all alcohol

https://www.gilderlehrman.org/...

that was obviously fucking stupid. and quickly reversed

it doesn't take a random yahoo on the internet to point out the fact that the supreme court is often later reversed. and that a random voice on the internet, me, just made you aware of the fact, doesn't change the fact. i can see you want to avoid the simple fact though, which says something about your intellectual honesty. shoot the messenger and you can avoid the message even if it is right?

the second amendment says a "well-regulated militia." aka, well-trained. it's not very controversial. it's quite plain. and yet the legal status quo today completely ignore the founding fathers obvious intent

so that will change

It's quite easy to make grand-sounding statements like this. It also marks you as someone who should never be trusted with the command of any military unit, ever.

Ahh, so you have never heard of General George S. Patton then?

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

The reason Vietnam lasted for nearly a decade, longer than WWII, is we had politicians trying what you're describing... "limited war, don't kill the enemy too much, try to avoid killing too many civilians, don't carpet bomb cities, hit this target, but that one is off limits".

It is a bunch of crap. Look at the 1st Gulf War. We hit the Iraqi military with everything we had, the ground war lasted less than 100 hours as a result, we were slaughtering them and they gave up en mass.

Desert Storm is a text book example of how to fight a war. It is one of the most lopsided military victories in history and if done right, is irresistible.

http://www.gilderlehrman.org/h...

"In August 1990, the Iraqi army invaded Kuwait. Five short months later, a powerful coalition led by the United States would launch Operation Desert Storm, one of the most rapid, decisive, and bloodless victories of all time. In just over four days of combat, the Coalition would liberate Kuwait, demolish the Iraqi army, and take hordes of Iraqi prisoners, all at a minimal cost in casualties. Iraqi losses in the course of this brief âoe100-hours warâ were massiveâ"some 20,000 killed and 60,000 wounded or captured. US forces, by contrast, suffered just 148 battle deaths, alongside another ninety-nine suffered by their coalition partners, one of the most lopsided results in military history."

In just under 100 hours of ground fighting, we crushed the enemy, we hit them with everything, and they surrendered. What YOU propose is a crime, because it will cause wars to go on for years. Like they are today.

the EU is more prosperous than the US, with a similar population, higher GDP, healthier economy, healthier people, more econonomically secure people, people who live longer, and people who wont far as far or as fast because they have ACTUAL welfare (unlike the POS we call 'welfare' in this nation).

the EU does all this, while having more regulations in their economy. ie, theire economy is "less free" than the US's.
------

as for your question of why the US is successful?
Cotton and slave labor.
That's why.
The US benefited from a unique confluence of circumstances. Much of colonial expansion by the european powers was driven by economic desires, such as the desire to grow cotton (England controlled India in order to grow contton). The US also had prime cotton growing capability. And the US also still had something else, something that England was slowly abandoning: cheap labor in the form of slaves.

The US came to dominate the world cottom market, growing hte lions share. But the margins even larger than everyone else because they didnt have to pay their workers. Everyone bought the cotton, bringing money into the US economy. Money that was invested and used to buy other things.

Really, the economy of hte entire western world was built on Cotton, primarily US cotton, and by extension then on slavery. The US was simply the biggest beneficiary, and that momentum carried our country's economy for many many decades, and really, still is. even the majority of current economic wealth is traced backwards through history, through each subsequent investment, originates in cotton profits.

http://www.gilderlehrman.org/h...
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/africa...
http://www.labornotes.org/blog...
http://www.economist.com/news/...
http://news.nationalgeographic...

Eisenhower signed the American-British-Soviet test moratorium in 1958. It was indeed 'a formally concluded and ratified agreement between countries', or what intellectually honest people call a treaty. There is no requirement for treaties to have that word in their title. There is no requirement for treaties to not be reciprocal or non-binding. What is a requirement is for a person to be intellectually honest while attempting to prove a point, a pointless point in this case, should they wish to not appear as an asshole.

So, would you like to try again with less weasel word bingo?

OK, nameless coward. Show me the test ban document that was "signed" and ratified in 1958 in the form of a binding bilateral or multilateral treaty or equivalent. You can't, because no such document exists or ever existed.

Read:
"October 31, 1958. The United States began a voluntary nuclear test moratorium in hopes that the USSR would agree to do the same. The Soviets resisted at first, completing tests on November 1 and 3, before beginning a self-imposed twelve-month ban."

Read:
"On 22 August 1958, the day after the experts had finished their report, Eisenhower announced that the United States would halt nuclear testing for one year if the Soviet Union (and the United Kingdom) would do likewise. To determine whether they would make the moratorium permanent, the three powers agreed to begin test ban negotiations in Geneva on 31 October. ... The Geneva test ban negotiations, which lasted from late 1958 through early 1962 ..."

Read:
"As a sign of good faith, Eisenhower proposed a 12-month moratorium on further U.S. nuclear tests. This voluntary ban was to begin on October 31, 1958 - the date for the opening of test ban negotiations ... and was conditioned by similar restraint by Moscow. ... The Soviets, who had never agreed to the moratorium, fired two more shots on November 1 and 3. [discussion of U.S. restraint in continuing the moratorium anyway] In fact, both the United States and the Soviet Union observed a voluntary moratorium for the next 12 months. ... on August 26, 1959 Eisenhower extended the one-year moratorium ... [and so on]"

Words, and especially terms, have meaning. Making up a "treaty" where none existed is either prevarication or heedless ignorance.

Who's the blowhard?