 |
If it's a good plan, then why wouldn't you accept it and run with it?Quote:
because it may be a good argument but nobody is listening to you.
Oh get over yourself. You didn't know American history and I called you on it. Move on.Quote:
but jl speaks out of anger and pride
I know what is available on the net, perhaps not the homogenised version you learnQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I said maybe it's a good plan, but has way to many flaws to be viable and I cited the history of events that have lead minorities to be dubious of conservatives PLANS. As well they should be.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
No, you haven't. You cited the 3/5 provision of the Constitution which was overturned more than 150 years ago. Beyond that, you've cited nothing.Quote:
I cited the history of events that have lead minorities to be dubious of conservatives PLANS.
Do you copy and paste your denials and dismissals of legitimate responses? They are starting to look alike and be redundant. Indeed I have expressed various examples of my positions showing the long history and legacy of racism, suppression, oppression, exploitation, cruelty, abuse, and atrocities in this country all through this thread and others. You act like passing a law means everything is okay, and minorities yet again have to holler scream and shout and all we get from you good old boys is a wink, nod, and another law that you find a way around before the ink is dry.
Why did we even need a civil right law in the 60's if we did away with the 3/5ths law 150 years ago? I know why. You refuse to listen and prefer to dominate. That's no longer a viable course of action dude.
I asked you for current examples of systemic racism. This was your "legitimate response"??? "Okay let's start with the politics of it. From the 3/5ths of a human value to the same politics that makes the laws and policies to ensure poverty." Now maybe you see something specific in there. I don't, so as long as you appear to be so completely clueless as to answers, I'm going to say, "No, you haven't."
This gets so old. I have suggested no new laws. My suggestions have to do with changing behavior. I haven't "winked" or "nodded". You need to get serious about this.Quote:
You act like passing a law means everything is okay, and minorities yet again have to holler scream and shout and all we get from you good old boys is a wink, nod, and another law that you find a way around before the ink is dry.
I see your problem, every time I comment on the collective you then you take it as the personal you. I will endeavor to be more specific, but guy you really have to expand your memory of past references to keep us from retreading posted stuff.
I find it very helpful to REVIEW postings to REFRESH my own rather flagging memory. Changing behavior often means new laws, regulations, or guidelines, because peoples attitudes, opinions, hearts, and minds and behavior, can be arbitrary, or even outlandish. That was the point of my posts. Why are we still fighting for civil rights? Voting rights? Or the right to party on the roof centuries after declaring all people are equal?
1. The 3/5 law is intentionally misinterpreted today . It was in the Constitution to weaken the institution of slavery .Quote:
Why did we even need a civil right law in the 60's if we did away with the 3/5ths law 150 years ago?
2 The need for civil rights laws came about because SCOTUS passed Plessy v Ferguson which allowed for institutionalized and codified discrimination . Once SCOTUS overturned Plessy with Brown v Board of Education then Civil rights laws were passed to reverse the laws that Plessy allowed to be enacted .
We kind of disagree as lawmakers wanted a way to count slaves for representation purposes backed by slave holders. You just add to my case about legal ways to keep a brother down, and in control that I have been having with your fellow conservative.
sorry you are wrong . By having the slave count as 3/5 ;the power of the slave holding states in a representative government ,where the population decided representation ,meant that the power of the slave holding states was diluted . It had nothing to do with 'keeping a brother down ' that is a clear false revisionist view . Either you are ill informed about the history or you are being deliberately disingenuous . There is plenty of sources that you can reference on that issue .
200 years ago???Quote:
You just add to my case about legal ways to keep a brother down,
I keep hearing from many sources this mantra of "systemic racism". It was certainly true 200 years ago. It was true 60 years ago. I'm looking around now to find out where this mysterious malady resides. I'm not suggesting it no longer exists, but sometimes in a different manner than we think. Minority contracters, for instance, get a 10% price advantage when bidding for federal jobs. So when a minority contractor bids 400,000 dollars and his competition bids 370,000, the minority contractor wins the bid. Now that strikes me as systemic racism, but not in the manner most people think.
But I'm open to it. What systemic racism exists now that works against minorities other than the supposed terrible hardship of needing an ID to vote?
Here are my links.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise
https://www.thoughtco.com/three-fift...romise-4588466
I get my position on the issue from someone who was much better arguing the position than I am . I give you for your reading pleasure Frederick Douglas .
. (The Constitution and SlaveryBy: Frederick Douglass March 16, 1849)Quote:
I answer — It is a downright disability laid upon the slaveholding States; one which deprives those States of two-fifths of their natural basis of representation
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/...0Constitution.
Slaves counted as whole persons would have given slave holding Southern states much more political power. The northern states did not want the slaves to be counted at all . That was unacceptable to the southern states . So no union of the states ;the north would go their own way and the south theirs .
Would the slaves then be better off with northern states having gone their way and southern states having gone theirs ? What was their chances of emancipation then ? The compromise and the compromises later in the 19th century paved the way ultimately to emancipation .
I have agreed with Mr. Douglas and you Tom in that it's easy to accept what the current conditions are and build upon it as indeed there would be no Constitution as we know it today without compromise no matter how disgusting the other side is. I think Biden makes that point also when he speaks of compromising with racists early on in his career. Let's understand though that while not explicitly written, the whole point of 3/5ths was wholly for the benefit of accommodating slave owners even if others were specifically identified as inclusion in this group. We both know it's be done for the express purpose of making the slave owners position more palatable to northerners, or the same dynamic could have scuttled the Constitution in the same way. The goal was to ratify the thing between the two camps and those in the middle.
Same outcome though wasn't it? Slaves were caught in the middle of it and all those immigrants (whites) eventually got the 2/3rds to move on up. We know what happened to the Indians with that manifest stuff. You have shown though for sure the real slick wordsmiths the founders really were and like you could spin it to win it, but that changed NOTHING for the chained up brothers, and that's the bottom line.
That's another reason I cannot sanitize the Civil War as just a states rights issue when it was all about the states rights to own slaves. Even that only replaced the chains of slavery with the chicanery of subjugation, oppression exploitation and cruel atrocities and terrorist tactics that cannot be spun in new laws and regulations to replace the old ones. You think a brother is disingenuous to point out this stuff that still goes on today? I don't think I'm the one that's wrong here, as the struggle continues.
Maybe we can compromise on some new laws huh? REFORMS as Mr. Douglas points out, and deal with the implementing them better so a brother can work hard as he has always done, and get a better return than he has been getting. Not saying you're all the way wrong, but some better equity is needed and that's why the dems is the best option for a brother, because we can participate in some of those reforms from the inside.
What new laws would you like to see?
patently untrue Douglas got it .Why can't you ? It set up the South for the inevitable reality that they were going to lose the political power and with it their peculiar institution .Quote:
he whole point of 3/5ths was wholly for the benefit of accommodating slave owners even if others were specifically identified as inclusion in this group.
it was never about 'states rights ' people have rights and states have powers. And yes the sole issue of the war was slavery . Those white immigrants you just disparaged paid a hefty price in lives lost to liberate the slaves .Quote:
I cannot sanitize the Civil War as just a states rights issue when it was all about the states rights to own slaves.
Yes I do think it very disingenuous for you to speak of American today as if there has been no change for the better since 1865 .Quote:
Even that only replaced the chains of slavery with the chicanery of subjugation, oppression exploitation and cruel atrocities and terrorist tactics that cannot be spun in new laws and regulations to replace the old ones. You think a brother is disingenuous to point out this stuff that still goes on today?
completely agree with your goal . However the paternalistic Dems have you completely bamboozled . They have made empty promises since the1960s and in many cases their policies have worsened the lot of the Blacks in the country . Billions of dollars spent and what does your average brother have to show for it ? The proof is in the results and you know that there is nothing to show for that loyalty . Maybe you should rethink your premise .Quote:
some better equity is needed and that's why the dems is the best option for a brother, because we can participate in some of those reforms from the inside.
This week NYC has seen a 414% increase in shootings over the same period a year ago as Sandinista Bill worries about fireworks in the city .
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/23/n...works-nyc.html
That is the type of representation you are getting from the Dems .This weekend the rate was a shooting an hour . The rates are similar throughout Democrat led cities . Me ? I expect better results from those who would claim to represent me and my interests .
Eliminate qualified immunity. Expand civil review boards, and get rid of bad cops and those that keep getting multiple complaints with little or no disciplinary actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Allow for mail in ballots to finally end the long voting lines, especially amid the virus, as well as wholesale roll purging practices, and the discriminatory practice of closing polling places and DMV locations in minority communities.
Reforms to educational funding, and housing discrimination, as well as predatory lending practices are also on my wish list for reforms and changes. Probably at the top of the priority though is the issue of a living wage versus a minimum wage which discriminates against certain types of people and the jobs they do that have proven essential to community well being.
I could go on like this all day long, but I'll just pause here and let you blast away, as you did during our pervious discussions on race, and poverty in America.
What you are really saying is implement the rule of law. You do know that can only really be done if there is a centralised law making process, that is federal law preempts state lawQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Nice spin but as Douglas did go on to point out was that change came about through the vote, and the southerners didn't lose power any other way except through their own actions that started the war. the 3/5ths rule allowed for slavery to expand in new territories and but for direct attacks on government troops we would have further compromise in new states that allowed for more slave states. You almost admit that in your post #628, that southerners did indeed have the power to push through and enhance their slave agenda and it took subsequent laws to fix that. That took VOTES. Inevitable reality of eliminating slavery took many DECADES and a war to resolve.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Acknowledging they were included in the 3/5ths rule and pointing out that they had a route from servitude that blacks and Native Americans did not is disparaging them? My point was and still is that they're inclusion made the whole rule palatable to the northern anti slavery dudes without even mentioning slavery as a specific institution by name.Quote:
it was never about 'states rights ' people have rights and states have powers. And yes the sole issue of the war was slavery . Those white immigrants you just disparaged paid a hefty price in lives lost to liberate the slaves .
Never said that either as I have specifically referenced that the struggle does indeed continue despite obstacles and challenges and OPPOSITION to change.Quote:
Yes I do think it very disingenuous for you to speak of American today as if there has been no change for the better since 1865 .
Oh come on. You don't get to blame dems for empty promises and not blame repubs for opposing those promises tooth and nail in many ways, despite the billions of dollars. I respectfully submit your blasting me for not acknowledging changes since the war, so you must think some progress has been made, so the statement NOTHING to show for it is as disingenuous as you accuse me of being. NO FAIR. That's why the struggle continues because we are constantly faced with new obstacles and challenges and opposition to OVERCOME.Quote:
completely agree with your goal . However the paternalistic Dems have you completely bamboozled . They have made empty promises since the1960s and in many cases their policies have worsened the lot of the Blacks in the country . Billions of dollars spent and what does your average brother have to show for it ? The proof is in the results and you know that there is nothing to show for that loyalty . Maybe you should rethink your premise
I will leave you and DeBlasio (And AOC) to settle your local differences. I think expecting higher crimes rates in more densely populated areas is a given don't you?Quote:
This week NYC has seen a 414% increase in shootings over the same period a year ago as Sandinista Bill worries about fireworks in the city .
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/23/n...works-nyc.html
That is the type of representation you are getting from the Dems .This weekend the rate was a shooting an hour . The rates are similar throughout Democrat led cities . Me ? I expect better results from those who would claim to represent me and my interests .
Minor actions that would do little to help.
Mail in ballots is a terrible idea. It opens wide the door to voter fraud. The other issues are worth discussing. We don't have long lines around here so maybe the rest of the country needs to copy us.Quote:
Allow for mail in ballots to finally end the long voting lines, especially amid the virus, as well as wholesale roll purging practices, and the discriminatory practice of closing polling places and DMV locations in minority communities.
I'm all in favor of ed reform. I would prefer privatizing the whole enterprise, or at least letting private schools get a piece of the pie. The whole issue of poor kids being trapped in low performing, unsafe schools should be a national disgrace.Quote:
Reforms to educational funding, and housing discrimination, as well as predatory lending practices are also on my wish list for reforms and changes. Probably at the top of the priority though is the issue of a living wage versus a minimum wage which discriminates against certain types of people and the jobs they do that have proven essential to community well being.
I don't care for the "living wage" idea. It would mean at least doubling the min wage and would lock out of the job market those with marginal skills or who have a checkered past. Besides, only 2% of workers are making min wage, and even in our area here, which is hardly an economic wonderworld, very few places pay min wage. However, I could be talked into at least considering the idea IF it was coupled with a drastic downsizing of the welfare system since, after all, people making a "living wage" can now support themselves.
The better approach is to stress with workers the importance of doing your job in an efficient manner. Make yourself more valuable. Learn new skills. Take some responsibility for your life. But with your idea, millions of Americans would simply lose their jobs since the employers would find other ways of doing business rather than having to pay someone more than he or she is worth.
Most important factor is to have a healthy economy. When unemployment gets low, then businesses are forced to compete for good labor and pay goes up.
Isn't it what you call "throwing rocks"? And since we both do it, then why are you complaining about it?Quote:
I could go on like this all day long, but I'll just pause here and let you blast away, as you did during our pervious discussions on race, and poverty in America.
I do commend you for posting your ideas. I'd still like to know where you see systemic racism.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:51 AM. |