Indentured servants weren’t just limited to the Irish. The English and Spanish also were indentured servants as a way to cover their costs to the new world many just skipped out once they made to the new world. All that is covered in 8th grade history
Indentured servants weren’t just limited to the Irish. The English and Spanish also were indentured servants as a way to cover their costs to the new world many just skipped out once they made to the new world. All that is covered in 8th grade history
Yes, and people forget their 8th grade history.
Migrant farm workers and domestic helpers are the indentured servants/slaves of today.
You keep claiming that foreign and domestic policy are mutually exclusive when they are not. You started out saying you know they are not the same and then have made every attempt to tie them together.
You are apparently scared that that is going to become a basis for war. Well it hasn’t happened yet so your fears are unfounded.
I know they are not functionally the same; I am just saying that they are different tools to achieve a single agenda.
The “casus belli” we normally have is the same as it’s been for millenia, namely conflict over resources.
So no I do not think any of these social issues will become a basis for war in and of themselves, yet, as is always the case, they will be used to put a more “ethical” spin on whatever conflicts do crop up. Something along the lines of the old “they hate us for our freedoms” canard.
I’ve already seen a bit of this with our current president’s propagandistic snubbing of Russia during their Olympics in 2014, ostensibly over Russia’s (admittedly lame) laws against public display of homosexuality. Getting us involved in a conflict with a nuclear-armed nation is going to be a hard sell on the basis of natural resources alone, so there needs to be a narrative in place that makes that nation seem like an evil snakepit of intolerance and bigotry.
We don’t go to war with countries because they have violated our domestic policies. If we did then there would be far more wars than we’ve had now. There is no precedent. They are not starting one now. They wouldn’t need to start now. If the Legislature body did so, the SCOTUS ruling would have nothing to do with that decision.
Similar to my point above - the stated cause of war is never some violation of domestic policy, but there is always the very loud implication that this is why we should be militarily involved.
That would be nice if things like that happened but That’s not justice for the people getting screwed. We’d still be waiting for segregation to end and woman’s suffrage if that were the case. Really what it comes down to is your type of (non)“logic” (Irrational Fear is really what you have, not logic) on these issues caters to the bigots.
“Let’s fuck our citizens over because if don’t we can’t do business with other countries that aren’t like us and if we do continue business with them then we have to invade that country to make them behave”
There’s been a lot of “that would be nice” replies in this thread so far, but - is hoping for a more spontaneously organized, and yet still largely just society THAT utopian and goofy?
As I mentioned before; the very issue we are talking about wasn’t considered even remotely possible when I was a kid. As in, it wasn’t even discussed. And it wasn’t even discussed much during the height of cultural revolution in the 1960s. Yet here we are today. Looking for patterns in history can sometimes be counter-productive: new trends and ideas can literally come out of nowhere.
Who cares how the dissenting parties feel? they are law breakers in the country. and yes the people in the country will be “held at gunpoint” until they comply with the law,because they are criminals But those are our “citizens” NOT THE REST OF THE WORLD
The problem I have with this line of thinking is that giving the government that kind of coercive force is a risky game to play. Example: I remember talking to some Republican relatives when all the post 9/11 legislature was rammed through, and they thought I was insane for thinking it might ever be used against good Christian free-market advocates like themselves. Well, lo and behold, Obama gets sworn in in 2009 and they are almost immediately crying about how “we can be defined as ‘enemy combatants’ under the vague provisions of the patriot act blah blah blah”…
They will never exhaust themselves they are still there. there are still large pockets of people in the south who hate Lincoln for freeing the slaves. That was 150 Years ago. They don’t die off. They don’t exhaust themselves. there is always a new crop to take their place. It would be irresponsible to wait around for them to “see the light.”
They don’t die off, sure, but - look at those people you mention. How much power do they have to organize or affect public policy? These rag-tag remnants of the Klan etc. are a running joke who can barely afford a P.O. box. Don’t give them more credit than they deserve.
Look, I don’t believe that all humans are inherently good, BUT I think that most people are egotists and their desire for self-recognition leads them to generally do altruistic things in order to get peer approval. Just a simple psychological mechanism like that should be enough, over time, to minimize injustices. And attempts to dramatically accelerate justice often backfire and make things worse, despite their ability at creating visible short-term gains.
OK we’ll uphold the constitution by extended rights to those that have been screwed out of them just so everyone will get pissed off about how we are abusing our authority by creating a MORE FREE society so we can get a war going?
Absurd.
The “carrot and the stick” strategy - granting some freedoms while in the process of dismantling others - is not anything new, is it?
You really don’t know how our government works do you? I mean you see what goes on today with courts and what not but you don’t know the actual paths, History and reasoning behind the separation of powers, the different branches of governments, checks and balances and all of the stuff that actually goes into our government, do you?
That’s sad because in my opinion that is what makes Governments dangerous (Not upholding the goddamn constitution like they’re supposed to, like you seem to think). That’s what let’s Governments get away with abuses because the constituency doesn’t know any better. If you don’t know how your government works then how do you know they are behaving accordingly? How do you know to hold them responsible? Well, you don’t. So, the easier thing to do besides learn it is to distrust all of it. So you get to look smart and disgruntled (Because smart people are always disgruntled) It’s win win baby!
Pathetic.
I used to think I knew how my government works. But what I learned in school, and how that government actually behaves, have been at odds for so long that I no longer can claim to know anything.
At a time when, for example there are secret “closed door” sessions of Congress over issues likely to piss off their constituencies, in an era when the Bill of Rights has been viewed more as a convenient suggestion than as the law of the land (see: War on Drugs), I find myself re-examining even the most elementary facts I’ve been given about government.
[reply]Indentured servants weren’t just limited to the Irish. The English and Spanish also were indentured servants as a way to cover their costs to the new world many just skipped out once they made to the new world. All that is covered in 8th grade history
Yes, and people forget their 8th grade history.
Migrant farm workers and domestic helpers are the indentured servants/slaves of today.[/reply]
I would suggest minimum wage workers as well because there is no way to pull yourself up off of minimum wage.
[reply][reply]Indentured servants weren’t just limited to the Irish. The English and Spanish also were indentured servants as a way to cover their costs to the new world many just skipped out once they made to the new world. All that is covered in 8th grade history
Yes, and people forget their 8th grade history.
Migrant farm workers and domestic helpers are the indentured servants/slaves of today.[/reply]
I would suggest minimum wage workers as well because there is no way to pull yourself up off of minimum wage.[/reply]
That is true if they are over age 25 and have no mobility in the job market in order to improve their earning potential.
Min wage jobs were not meant to be careers but they have been turned into just that.
Min wage jobs were not meant to be careers but they have been turned into just that.
That’s because there’s not much else out there
[reply]
Min wage jobs were not meant to be careers but they have been turned into just that.
That’s because there’s not much else out there[/reply]
I know. Where are all these job creators who received tax breaks?
[reply]
You keep claiming that foreign and domestic policy are mutually exclusive when they are not. You started out saying you know they are not the same and then have made every attempt to tie them together.
You are apparently scared that that is going to become a basis for war. Well it hasn’t happened yet so your fears are unfounded.
I know they are not functionally the same; I am just saying that they are different tools to achieve a single agenda.
The “casus belli” we normally have is the same as it’s been for millenia, namely conflict over resources.
So no I do not think any of these social issues will become a basis for war in and of themselves, yet, as is always the case, they will be used to put a more “ethical” spin on whatever conflicts do crop up. Something along the lines of the old “they hate us for our freedoms” canard.
I’ve already seen a bit of this with our current president’s propagandistic snubbing of Russia during their Olympics in 2014, ostensibly over Russia’s (admittedly lame) laws against public display of homosexuality. Getting us involved in a conflict with a nuclear-armed nation is going to be a hard sell on the basis of natural resources alone, so there needs to be a narrative in place that makes that nation seem like an evil snakepit of intolerance and bigotry.
We don’t go to war with countries because they have violated our domestic policies. If we did then there would be far more wars than we’ve had now. There is no precedent. They are not starting one now. They wouldn’t need to start now. If the Legislature body did so, the SCOTUS ruling would have nothing to do with that decision.
Similar to my point above - the stated cause of war is never some violation of domestic policy, but there is always the very loud implication that this is why we should be militarily involved.
That would be nice if things like that happened but That’s not justice for the people getting screwed. We’d still be waiting for segregation to end and woman’s suffrage if that were the case. Really what it comes down to is your type of (non)“logic” (Irrational Fear is really what you have, not logic) on these issues caters to the bigots.
“Let’s fuck our citizens over because if don’t we can’t do business with other countries that aren’t like us and if we do continue business with them then we have to invade that country to make them behave”
There’s been a lot of “that would be nice” replies in this thread so far, but - is hoping for a more spontaneously organized, and yet still largely just society THAT utopian and goofy?
As I mentioned before; the very issue we are talking about wasn’t considered even remotely possible when I was a kid. As in, it wasn’t even discussed. And it wasn’t even discussed much during the height of cultural revolution in the 1960s. Yet here we are today. Looking for patterns in history can sometimes be counter-productive: new trends and ideas can literally come out of nowhere.
Who cares how the dissenting parties feel? they are law breakers in the country. and yes the people in the country will be “held at gunpoint” until they comply with the law,because they are criminals But those are our “citizens” NOT THE REST OF THE WORLD
The problem I have with this line of thinking is that giving the government that kind of coercive force is a risky game to play. Example: I remember talking to some Republican relatives when all the post 9/11 legislature was rammed through, and they thought I was insane for thinking it might ever be used against good Christian free-market advocates like themselves. Well, lo and behold, Obama gets sworn in in 2009 and they are almost immediately crying about how “we can be defined as ‘enemy combatants’ under the vague provisions of the patriot act blah blah blah”…
They will never exhaust themselves they are still there. there are still large pockets of people in the south who hate Lincoln for freeing the slaves. That was 150 Years ago. They don’t die off. They don’t exhaust themselves. there is always a new crop to take their place. It would be irresponsible to wait around for them to “see the light.”
They don’t die off, sure, but - look at those people you mention. How much power do they have to organize or affect public policy? These rag-tag remnants of the Klan etc. are a running joke who can barely afford a P.O. box. Don’t give them more credit than they deserve.
Look, I don’t believe that all humans are inherently good, BUT I think that most people are egotists and their desire for self-recognition leads them to generally do altruistic things in order to get peer approval. Just a simple psychological mechanism like that should be enough, over time, to minimize injustices. And attempts to dramatically accelerate justice often backfire and make things worse, despite their ability at creating visible short-term gains.
OK we’ll uphold the constitution by extended rights to those that have been screwed out of them just so everyone will get pissed off about how we are abusing our authority by creating a MORE FREE society so we can get a war going?
Absurd.
The “carrot and the stick” strategy - granting some freedoms while in the process of dismantling others - is not anything new, is it?
You really don’t know how our government works do you? I mean you see what goes on today with courts and what not but you don’t know the actual paths, History and reasoning behind the separation of powers, the different branches of governments, checks and balances and all of the stuff that actually goes into our government, do you?
That’s sad because in my opinion that is what makes Governments dangerous (Not upholding the goddamn constitution like they’re supposed to, like you seem to think). That’s what let’s Governments get away with abuses because the constituency doesn’t know any better. If you don’t know how your government works then how do you know they are behaving accordingly? How do you know to hold them responsible? Well, you don’t. So, the easier thing to do besides learn it is to distrust all of it. So you get to look smart and disgruntled (Because smart people are always disgruntled) It’s win win baby!
Pathetic.
I used to think I knew how my government works. But what I learned in school, and how that government actually behaves, have been at odds for so long that I no longer can claim to know anything.
At a time when, for example there are secret “closed door” sessions of Congress over issues likely to piss off their constituencies, in an era when the Bill of Rights has been viewed more as a convenient suggestion than as the law of the land (see: War on Drugs), I find myself re-examining even the most elementary facts I’ve been given about government.[/reply]
So, I see an article where Rick Santorum is Pretty much stealing your “Gay ruling was bad for the world” schtick.
TSK TSK. think for yourself, but if you have to copy don’t copy off of one of the class doofuses.
I don’t care to enter the debate. I hate politics and avoid such discussions. However, saw this Rollins editorial on the subject and I thought of you sweethearts.
I don’t care to enter the debate. I hate politics and avoid such discussions. However, saw this Rollins editorial on the subject and I thought of you sweethearts.
Rollins is great. Smart guy
I don’t care to enter the debate. I hate politics and avoid such discussions. However, saw this Rollins editorial on the subject and I thought of you sweethearts.
I rarely make it through any of Rollins’ editorials; because they always remind me of how the punk politics of his generation has deviated from its original anarchistic poses (up to and including the [url https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_symbolism#Black_flag]symbology of Rollins’ most famous band). From ‘smashing the system’ to pretending that it can negotiate with that inherently corrupt system.
This quote is interesting:
“Wanting to get married is a freakin’ billboard for normality and inclusion.”
Somewhat strange to see the man with the “Life Is Pain / I Want to be Insane” tattoo singing the hosannahs of NORMALITY. The guy who has spent the better part of his career going on about how fucked up this nation is, and who now apparently thinks it’d be a great idea if more people are now assimilated into the mainstream of said fucked-up nation.
I like the quote from Justin Raimondo (who I linked earlier) on the need for assimilation:
"f ‘gay pride’ means anything, it means not wanting, needing, or seeking any sort of acceptance but self-acceptance. Marriage is a social institution designed by heterosexuals for heterosexuals: why should gay people settle for their cast-off hand-me-downs?"
And just to be a good sport to Grmpy, I will also link the article where [url http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/recanting-the-libertarian-case-against-gay-marriage/]he partially rethinks his original position on the issue.
So, I see an article where Rick Santorum is Pretty much stealing your “Gay ruling was bad for the world” schtick.
TSK TSK. think for yourself, but if you have to copy don’t copy off of one of the class doofuses.
Oh come on man, did you really just pull a “reductio ad Hitlerum” on me? Examples:
“Hitler was a dog-lover, so you are a Nazi for liking dogs”
“Rick Santorum shares your opinions on gay marriage, therefore you probably agree with him on his other douche-y opinions”
And without seeing said article I don’t know what his opinions are anyway. Probably some boilerplate Christian crap from the book of Leviticus as per usual.
I don’t think the gay marriage ruling is full-stop “bad for the world.” I do think, again, that it will be a new “they hate us for our freedoms” propaganda point coming from this regime as they need to create justifications for bombing the shit out of the enemy-of-the-week.
[reply]
So, I see an article where Rick Santorum is Pretty much stealing your “Gay ruling was bad for the world” schtick.
TSK TSK. think for yourself, but if you have to copy don’t copy off of one of the class doofuses.
Oh come on man, did you really just pull a “reductio ad Hitlerum” on me? Examples:
“Hitler was a dog-lover, so you are a Nazi for liking dogs”
“Rick Santorum shares your opinions on gay marriage, therefore you probably agree with him on his other douche-y opinions”
And without seeing said article I don’t know what his opinions are anyway. Probably some boilerplate Christian crap from the book of Leviticus as per usual.
I don’t think the gay marriage ruling is full-stop “bad for the world.” I do think, again, that it will be a new “they hate us for our freedoms” propaganda point coming from this regime as they need to create justifications for bombing the shit out of the enemy-of-the-week.[/reply]
You might wanna go back and reread what I wrote for clarity.
(shakes head, rolls eyes)
This quote is interesting:
“Wanting to get married is a freakin’ billboard for normality and inclusion.”
Somewhat strange to see the man with the “Life Is Pain / I Want to be Insane” tattoo singing the hosannahs of NORMALITY. The guy who has spent the better part of his career going on about how fucked up this nation is, and who now apparently thinks it’d be a great idea if more people are now assimilated into the mainstream of said fucked-up nation.
Ever occur to you that he thought/thinks the nation is/was fucked up because it segregates people and demonizes them for being weird or different and is now happy/proud that he can see progress? probably not.
Perhaps “life is pain” because of the fucked up unfairness of system and he “wants to be insane” so wouldn’t be able to see it and live peacefully. now life is a little less painless which makes sanity a little easier to live with.
Ever occur to you that he thought/thinks the nation is/was fucked up because it segregates people and demonizes them for being weird or different and is now happy/proud that he can see progress? probably not.
Perhaps “life is pain” because of the fucked up unfairness of system and he “wants to be insane” so wouldn’t be able to see it and live peacefully. now life is a little less painless which makes sanity a little easier to live with.
It has occurred to me, but Rollins is mistaken if he thinks “the system” is going to do an ethical 180-degree turn just because someone other than a blueblood Republican is the Commander in Chief.
It may help him sleep easier at night thinking that things are trending in the way of a more compassionate government and a more egalitarian system. And that’s fine. But as I’ve said before, either that system dramatically scales down its efforts to kill, imprison, and spy on / ‘survey’ everyone that dislikes its policies, or I am always going to view things like the SCOTUS ruling as a bone that is thrown to the populace as it continues with that ugly business as usual.
Anyway Grmpy I think we are hopelessly at an impasse here. I don’t think either of us are gonna sway the other towards a radical re-think.
Anyway Grmpy I think we are hopelessly at an impasse here. I don’t think either of us are gonna sway the other towards a radical re-think.
Confusious say: “Man who try to change Grumpy’s mind lose his own.”
[reply]
Anyway Grmpy I think we are hopelessly at an impasse here. I don’t think either of us are gonna sway the other towards a radical re-think.
Confusious say: “Man who try to change Grumpy’s mind lose his own.”[/reply]
Oh I don’t mind Grmp’s merciless and withering assaults all that much. You need stuff like that in life to decide if what you believe is, indeed, what you really believe.
I would say The G-man and I both want to live in a world where human suffering is minimized. We differ on who has the ability to truly do that, but we have the same desired end result, I reckon.
[reply][reply]
Anyway Grmpy I think we are hopelessly at an impasse here. I don’t think either of us are gonna sway the other towards a radical re-think.
Confusious say: “Man who try to change Grumpy’s mind lose his own.”[/reply]
Oh I don’t mind Grmp’s merciless and withering assaults all that much. You need stuff like that in life to decide if what you believe is, indeed, what you really believe.
I would say The G-man and I both want to live in a world where human suffering is minimized. We differ on who has the ability to truly do that, but we have the same desired end result, I reckon.[/reply]
This is exactly it. As much as i like your input on the rest of the board your posts on politics dont really follow any kind of clear path. They meander hopelessly in disjointed roads of word salad. At best your most logical arguments consist of circular reasoning and non sequiturs. Maybe one day.
[reply][reply][reply]
Anyway Grmpy I think we are hopelessly at an impasse here. I don’t think either of us are gonna sway the other towards a radical re-think.
Confusious say: “Man who try to change Grumpy’s mind lose his own.”[/reply]
Oh I don’t mind Grmp’s merciless and withering assaults all that much. You need stuff like that in life to decide if what you believe is, indeed, what you really believe.
I would say The G-man and I both want to live in a world where human suffering is minimized. We differ on who has the ability to truly do that, but we have the same desired end result, I reckon.[/reply]
This is exactly it. As much as i like your input on the rest of the board your posts on politics dont really follow any kind of clear path. They meander hopelessly in disjointed roads of word salad. At best your most logical arguments consist of circular reasoning and non sequiturs. Maybe one day.[/reply]
“You forgot ugly, lazy, and disrespectful . . . .”
